














THE POTTERS AND 
POTTERIES OF BENNINGTON 


THIS SPECIAL LIMITED EDITION CONSISTS OF EIGHT HUNDRED 
NUMBERED COPIES PRINTED AND BOUND AT THE RIVERSIDE 
PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. OF THESE SEVEN HUNDRED AND 
FIFTY ARE OFFERED FOR SALE. THIS IS NUMBER. FH. 7, ° 





PLaTE I 





Ge POTTERS 
and POTTERIES of 
BENNINGTON 


By JOHN SPARGO 


President of the BENNINGTON BaTTLE MonuMENT 


AND HisToricaL ASSOCIATION 





Boston 


HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 
and 


ANTIQUES INCORPORATED 
1926 


TO 
MY GOOD FRIEND AND FELLOW COLLECTOR 
GEORGE S. McKEARIN 
THIS STUDY OF THE HOBBY IN WHICH 
WE ARE MUTUALLY INTERESTED 
IS DEDICATED AS A MARK OF MY FRIENDSHIP 





PREFACE 


O apology is offered for this book, except, of course, for its 

deficiencies and defects. Of these I am more acutely con- 

scious than any of my readers is likely to be. With all its 
shortcomings, the book must be its own justification. It can have no 
other. 

A word of personal explanation may not be out of place. In many 
books and pamphlets published during the last quarter of a century, I 
have dealt with great and perplexing problems, social, economic, and 
political. Just as many of my personal friends have been surprised to 
find me interested in ‘old cracked tea-pots and dishes,’ as one of them 
expressed it, so some of those who have paid me the compliment of 
reading what I have written upon social and economic questions may 
be surprised that in times like these I should be found devoting time 
and energy to something so remote from social and political contro- 
versy as this historical and descriptive account of an old New England 
industry. 

It would be idle to deny the incongruence, of course. When one 
turns from the impassioned controversies over Bolshevism and our 
national policy toward the Soviet Government of Russia to a study of 
the simple products of a little Vermont pottery, the most sensible 
thing to do, so far as I can see, is to avow, and if need be to defend, a 
diversion which is, at least, quite harmless. Surely one may ‘strive to 
set the crooked straight’ and still be human enough to ride a hobby! I 
venture to believe, moreover, that a moderate devotion to some in- 


nocent hobby that requires patience, contemplation, and, above all, 


Vili PREFACE 


contact and association with other devotees of the same hobby, would, 
for all mankind, make for better and wiser thinking upon graver mat- 
ters, and so help in the work of setting the crooked straight. 

Be that as it may, I confess that, from my boyhood days, I have 
always been interested in old china and pottery, and even fascinated 
bythem. A modest publicist, one of the humblest of the citizens of the 
great republic of letters, may confess so much without apology in view 
of the many illustrious names upon the roster of the same hobby. 
The immortal Washington was an enthusiastic and discriminating 
collector of china, and, when he returned to private life at Mount 
Vernon, his collection of Sévres china and porcelain figures was ex- 
tensive enough to require the setting apart of a small room for them. 
Benjamin Franklin was astonished when his wife set his breakfast of 
bread and milk before him in a china bowl, the first appearance of 
china in his household. All the world knows how fond of good china he 
became. Judging by the quantities of the ware which he sent to his 
wife from England and France, he must have devoted much time to 
this hobby. For his everyday use he shared Washington’s preference 
for blue and white Canton ware. ‘I fell in love with it at first sight,’ he 
wrote to his wife of ‘a large fine jug for beer to stand in the cooler.’ 
What would he think of Mr. Volstead, I wonder? 

' The great Dr. Johnson was an enthusiastic devotee of this same 
hobby. Crown-Derby delighted his soul, though he bemoaned its cost- 
liness. He was keenly interested in the soft paste porcelain of Chelsea, 
and went so far as to spend considerable time at the pottery, trying 
his hand at mixing bodies and glazes, hoping to ‘improve the manu- 
facture of china.’ Gladstone could find time in the midst of the gravest 
ministerial crises to revel in the beauties of old Wedgwood, which he 
appreciated as few have ever done, and concerning which he knew as 


PREFACE 1x 


much as any man in England. We may not take our hobby quite so 
seriously as did Horace Walpole, ‘the best letter writer in the English 
language,’ whose great collection at Strawberry Hill bore witness to 
his enthusiasm and his discrimination. It was written of him: 
China’s the passion of his soul; 
A cup, a plate, a dish, a bowl, 


Can kindle wishes in his breast, 
Inflame with joy or break his rest. 


But though we may not thus enslave ourselves — and, of course, 
Horace Walpole didn’t — there is ample justification for an intelligent 
devotion to this gentlest of hobbies, whose devotees are such amiable 
folk. 

When I settled in this delightful Vermont village it was inevitable 
that I should become interested in the quaint old pottery and porce- 
Jain that was made here in the middle of the nineteenth century, good 
specimens of which are more sought after by collectors than are those 
of any other American potteries. My principal interest, however, was 
in collecting facts concerning the potteries and potters rather than in 
collecting specimens. Bennington is one of the most historic spots in 
America; the romance of history is in every shadow of its hills. One 
who has an instinctive liking for historical study, even though he be a 
Vermonter only by adoption, if he has grown to love the place, finds 
himself drawn to a study of its inspiring past. My interest in the 
history of the pottery industry at Bennington, therefore, was part and 
parcel of my interest in the history of the foundation of the Common- 
wealth itself. 

As will appear to the reader, this book would never have been 
written at all were it not for the disappointment resulting from a 
study of the books and articles previously published on the subject, 


x PREFACE 


and comparison of them with such evidence as I had accumulated in 
the course of my own studies. When, therefore, the state of my health 
made it imperative that I should cease troubling about graver and 
weightier problems for a time, it seemed worth while to gather to- 
gether, and set down for the benefit of collectors and students of such 
matters, all that I had learned about the potters of old Bennington 
and their work. 

I desire to express my thanks to many helpers for valuable assist- 
ance. To my colleague Mr. Edward L. Bates, Secretary of the Ben- 
nington Battle Monument and Historical Association, I am indebted 
for much valuable research, without which the book would not have 
been possible. To my good friend Mr. W. G. Leake, one of the old 
potters, I am likewise under heavy obligation. Not only has he fur- 
nished me with technical and other information not otherwise accessi- 
ble, but he has been untiring in his investigation of the history of 
special and unusual specimens. Mrs. Edward Norton, Miss Helena 
Norton, and Mrs. Luman S. Norton, of Bennington, have kindly 
placed at my disposal valuable family papers, documents, and por- 
traits without which it would have been impossible to trace so fully 
the history of the Norton potteries. My fellow collector Mr. George 
S. McKearin, of Hoosick Falls, New York, has not only given me the 
free range of his notable collection, but has aided at every step with 
most valuable advice and suggestions. Mr. Herbert Williams Denio, 
Librarian of the Vermont Historical Society, Mr. Harold G. Rugg, 
Librarian of Dartmouth College, and Mr. Harry J. Podmore, of 
Trenton, New Jersey, have been of great service in looking up old 
records. To Mrs. Anne R. Congdon, of Nashua, New Hampshire, Dr. 
and Mrs. W. B. Walker, Mrs. Charles H. Dewey, Mrs. W. J. Meagher, 
Mr. John Norton, Dr. S. R. Wilcox, Mr. H. D. Fillmore, Mr. John 


PREFACE xi 


Moore, and Mrs. Mary H. Adams — all of Bennington —I am in- 
debted for many friendly courtesies. 

Most of the illustrations in the book are from photographs of 
specimens in my own collection, though other collectors have kindly 
helped by placing individual specimens at my disposal. For such 
courtesies I am indebted to Mr. George S. McKearin, Mrs. Anne R. 
Congdon, the Reverend Joseph Lyman, of Sharon, Massachusetts, 
Mrs. W. J. Meagher, Mrs. Buel Sibley, Miss Helena Norton, and Mrs. 
Ralph H. White, of Bennington. My thanks are hereby tendered to 
them. My good friend Mr. W. J. Hickmott, of Hartford, Connecti- 
cut, was good enough to make the admirable photographs of the pot- 
tery marks for me, and I am also indebted to him for other helpful 
courtesies. Mrs. Florence Paull Berger, Curator of the Wadsworth 
Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, kindly arranged to have photo- 
graphs made for me of pieces in that institution. 

With few exceptions the photographs were made under my per- 
sonal supervision, some by my friend, Mr. E. C. Hamilton, formerly 
of Bennington, but the greater part by another friend and fellow 
townsman, Mr. Wills T. White. I am greatly obliged to both gentle- 
men for their painstaking care and skill. Whatever measure of success 
the book attains in presenting clearly the work of the Bennington 
potteries is due in no small measure to their efficient cooperation. It is 
doubtful if any pottery made anywhere ever presented greater diffh- 
culties to the photographer than the highly glazed Rockingham and 
Flint Enamel Wares of Bennington, and it is equally doubtful if, on 
the whole, greater success has been attained. 

JoHN SPARGO 


NEsTLEDOWN 
Op BennincTon, VERMONT 
January, 1926 





é Beier, i ae ae 
a ae aN 
eA maa wen a . 




















RIOR 5 
*. nid pe 


* ; es: ; ; , + es Su y aa 1; 











= 
4 
_ 





CONTENTS 


PART ONE 
THE Norton PotTtTeriEs: 1793-1894 
I. VERMonT’s First PoTTERY 
II. THe Earry Potrers 


Captain JoHn NorToN 
Luman Norton 

Norman L. Jupp 

Joun anp Norman Norton 
Earty EmMpLoyers 


ITINERANT PoTTERS 


III. Expansion AnD Procress — 1833-1861 


THe New Porrery oF 1833 
CHRISTOPHER WEBBER FENTON’s ADVENT 
Fire-Brick INTRODUCED 

A PARTNERSHIP AND A FIRE 

Jutius Norton 

THE PARTNERSHIP EXPLAINED © 
FENTON’s QUALIFICATIONS 

Tue Potrery or 1845 

EXPERIMENTS WITH PORCELAIN 

Norton & Fenton Disso_vE PARTNERSHIP 
Norton & Fenton Propucts 

Jutius Norton Resumes 

J. & E. Norton, 1850-1859 

J. & E. Norton & Co., 1859-1861 

THE Periop REVIEWED 


IV. Tue Last Puase 


E. & L. P. Norton, 1861-1881 
Tue Fire or 1874 

Tue Potrery Wacons 

E. Norton, 1881-1883 


XIV CONTENTS 


Epwarp Norton & Company, 1883-1893 95 
Epwarp Lincotn Norton 96 
A Curonotocicat List or Att Marks Used By THE Norton Porrerigs 98 
PART TWO 

THE Fenton PoTreRies 
I. FENTON AND THE UNITED StaTEs PoTTERY 103 
THE Fenton GENEALOGY 103 
CHRISTOPHER WEBBER FENTON 108 
FENTON’s CHARACTER AND ATTAINMENTS 109 
MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN III 
THE BEGINNING OF THE FENTON BusINESS 112 
ASSOCIATION WiTH Henry D. Har 113 
Fenton’s Works : 114 
Fenton As Dry-Goops MERCHANT 116 
Catvin Park A PARTNER 118 
Carvin Park WITHDRAWS 120 
FEeNnTON’s PaTENT Process 121 
Tue Factory or 1850 122 
Atanson Potrer LyMANn 126 
OuiveR A. GAGER 127 
BennincTton Ware AT THE New York EXxuIBiT 129 
New Conpitions, New DIFFICULTIES 131 
FAILURE 133 
II]. Varin Arrempts aT RevIvAL 136 
Tue VENTuRE AT WeEsT Troy 138 
FurTHER Errort AT BENNINGTON 139 
T. A. Hutcuins & Co. 140 
H. F. DEwEy 141 
Criosinc Years or C, W. Fenton | 142 
III. VarretieEs AND Types or Ware MADE 154 
Pitkin’s CLASSIFICATION 155 
Tue Actua Propuct, 1845-1858 158 
I. Common WHITE 158 


II. Common YELLOW 160 


CONTENTS 


III. Stone Cuina 
IV. Granite WaRE 
V. Common ‘S.irp’ CovereD RED WaRE 
VI. Frint Ware 
VII. RockincHam 
VIII. Fuunt Enamert Ware 
IX. ScroppLED WARE 
IV. Partan AND OTHER PorRCELAINS 
THE ComMpPoOSITION OF PORCELAIN 
PaRIAN WaRE 
THE MAKING or Partan Ware: CASTING 
Tue Makinc or Partan WaRE: PRESSING 


SUPPLEMENTARY Note To CuHaptTer IV: THE ‘Wepcwoop Mortar’ 


WarRE 
V. SoME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 

Decius W. CLark 
DANIEL GREATBACH 
Enocu Woop 
STEPHEN THEISS 
THEOPHILE FREY 
MEN FROM STAFFORDSHIRE 
NatTIvE VERMONTERS 

VI. Bennincton Marks 


APPENDICES 
I. IpENTIFICATION Hints 
II. A Patent Cxiaim By C. W. FEntToN 


247 
250 


III. Formu.a or Bopies anp Giazes UseED AT THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 251 


~ IV. Articies or AssociATION OF THE UNITED StaTEs Potrery CoMPANY 


253 


V. Extract FROM THE First ANNUAL REPORT ON THE GEOLOGY OF VER- 


MONT, 1845 
INDEX 


254 
257 


Pat 
. 
4 
ue 
“9 
e¢ 





THE POTTERS AND 
POTTERIES OF BENNINGTON 


PART ONE 
THE NORTON POTTERIES 
1793-1894. 


NOTE 


Tue widespread interest in Bennington pottery, the frequency with 
which it is mentioned in books and magazines relating to American ce- 
ramics, and the high prices paid for specimens by numerous collectors 
have had the natural result of arousing the interest of numerous dealers 
and amateur collectors. It is not surprising that any piece of pottery 
marked Bennington has seemed to many dealers and private owners to be 
valuable. It has not been understood that the Bennington pottery 
sought by most collectors is that which was made at the potteries con- 
ducted by C. W. Fenton, all of which was made within a space of less 
than fifteen years, and that the pottery industry was carried on in Ben- 
nington by the Norton family for a full century — the marked pieces 
covering ninety years. 

At the same time, a smaller but not inconsiderable number of collec- 
tors to whom the foregoing distinction is clearly known, collect the 
coarser and less costly stoneware pottery made at Bennington by the 
Norton family. Sometimes they collect this ware only, and sometimes 
they collect it in conjunction with the finer and more expensive products 
of Christopher Webber Fenton and his associates. 

Because this volume is intended to serve all classes of collectors, it has 
been my aim to keep sharp and clear the distinction between the Norton 
Potteries and their products, and the products of Fenton and his associ- 
ates. Accordingly, the first part of the book is devoted to the Norton 
family’s work — 1793-1894. 

ifs 


THE POTTERS AND 
POTTERIES OF BENNINGTON 


PART ONE 
THE NORTON POTTERIES 


I 
VERMONT’S FIRST POTTERY 


HE first pottery in Bennington was established in 1793, two 

years after the admission of Vermont into the Union. That 

this was the first pottery to be established in Vermont seems 
reasonably certain. The founder and proprietor of the enterprise was 
a stalwart patriot who had seen much service in the Revolutionary 
War, Captain John Norton, a native of Goshen, Connecticut.* 

In the spring of 1785 John Norton — then aged twenty-seven 
years — left Williamstown, Massachusetts, and came to Bennington 
with his wife and their firstborn, an infant three or four months old. 
They had lived in Williamstown only a short time. A man of modest 
substance, Norton now purchased a large farm, said to have been then 
regarded as one of the finest in the town. It lay little more than a mile 
south of the Meeting House, traversed by the main highway between 
Canada and Massachusetts Bay, on the road from Bennington to 
Pownal. At that time Vermont had not yet been admitted into the 


* Edwin Atlee Barber says (The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States, p. 104) that 
William Norton was associated with his brother in the establishment and operation of this 
pottery. While William Norton settled in Bennington near his brother, he never was con- 
nected with the pottery in any way whatsoever, either as part proprietor or workman. 


4 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Union. Its claims for admission were stoutly resisted by New York 
and as a result it was virtually an independent republic, with its own 
coinage, post-offices and post-roads; its own naturalization laws and 
its own independent foreign relations. 

John Norton had served in the Revolutionary Army from 1776 to 
1781. He was a Captain in the Eighteenth Connecticut Regiment and 
took part in important engagements at Long Island, Haarlem Heights, 
and White Plains. He heard the guns roar at the siege of Fort Wash- 
ington, and he was one of the guards of Major André, and present at 
his execution. One of his Bennington neighbors, Hiram Harwood, to 
whose diaries we are indebted for much of our knowledge of the pioneer 
potter and his work, greatly agitated by the charges made by one 
historian, asked Captain John Norton about that tragic event. The 
incident is recorded under the date, December 12, 1820: 


I went to Capt. N.’s to get our fanning mill — talked with him on the 
execution of André to which he was an eye-witness — instead of its being an 
affair of revenge, as Bisset would have it, every American officer and soldier 
mourned and regretted it most affectionately. Any man doubting the dispo- 
sition of that author toward this country will here find sufficient testimony 
to condemn him. 

The Norton Genealogy traces the family ancestry back to one 
Seigneur de Norville who accompanied William the Conqueror when 
he landed in England, in September, 1066. In the year 1639 Thomas 
Norton and Grace, his wife, with their children and several neighbors, 
left Guildford, Surrey, England, and came to this country. They 
landed at Boston and settled the town of Guilford, Connecticut. 
Thomas Norton, who was a strict Puritan, was the first miller in the 
town, and the place where his mill stood — about half a mile east of 
the present boundaries of the town — was, until quite recently, 


commonly known as ‘Norton’s Quarters.’ 


VERMONT’S FIRST POTTERY 5 


David Norton, of Goshen, was a lineal descendant of the Puritan 
miller, and the first Vermont potter was the fourth son of David, and 
was born at Goshen, November 29, 1758. He married Lucretia Buel, 
youngest daughter of the distinguished patriot Jonathan Buel. 
Captain Norton was a man of considerably more than the average 
education. 

In so far as can be learned, during the first seven years of his resi- 
dence in Bennington, Captain Norton devoted himself entirely to 
farming. He established a distillery, but whether that was in opera- 
tion before 1793 is not positively known. The date of the beginning 
of the pottery business is shown by family records, amply supported 
by contemporary evidence. The first kiln was erected in 1793. Pitkin 
says in his book: ‘ Presumably Capt. Norton was originally a maker of 
what are now known as red wares. Every indication tends to show, 
that in his first pottery, at Bennington, only salt-glazed stoneware was 
produced.’ * This does not at all accord with the available evidence. 
In the first place, the confounding of ‘red ware’ and ‘stoneware’ is 
misleading. In the second place, the earliest well-authenticated 
specimens of Captain Norton’s pottery are not salt-glazed. 

What is probably the earliest, as well as the best authenticated, 
piece made at the original pottery is a small brown earthenware jug, 
made of the local clay covered with what old potters call ‘Albany 
Slip.’ It was made not later than 1798, and probably somewhat earlier. 
Its history is unimpeachable. Omindia Armstrong was born at Ben- 
nington in 1788. She lived there uninterruptedly until 1880, when she 
died at the age of ninety-two. As Omindia Gerry (Mrs. Jethro Gerry) 
she was one of the best known inhabitants of the town. She gave the 


* Albert Hastings Pitkin: Early American Folk Pottery, including the History of the Benning- 
ton Pottery, p. 17. I have corrected the impossible punctuation of Pitkin, here and elsewhere. 


6 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


first subscription — one hundred dollars — toward the cost of build- 
ing the Bennington Battle Monument. 

When she was a little girl, not quite ten years old, the jug was made 
for her at the original Norton pottery by Abel Wadsworth, who was a 
potter there. Mrs. Gerry never let the jug go out of her possession 
until she was in her ninetieth year. On March 22, 1878, she presented 
the piece to Mr. George Wadsworth Robinson, one of Bennington’s 
most respected citizens. Mr. Robinson at once wrote out an account 
of the jug and its history and placed the document in the jug, where it 
was always kept until, with great difficulty, I removed it, in the early 
part of 1922, for the purpose of mounting it for its preservation. From 
1878 until their removal to my house neither jug nor paper had ever 
left the Robinson homestead. 

The jug is an altogether charming bit of pottery. It is about six 
inches high. Upon each side there is a rather crude decoration in the 
shape of a spray of leaves rather lighter than the rest of the coat of 
‘slip’ with which it is glazed. That it is a coating of ‘slip,’ and not 
salt glaze, is beyond dispute. It is easy to see how it was dipped. The 
body is like other red ware known to have been made at the Norton 
Pottery. It was baked exceedingly hard. 

Another specimen of the ware produced at the original pottery of 
Captain Norton, though perhaps at a somewhat later date than the 
jug, is in my collection. It is just as well authenticated as ‘Aunt 
Mindy’ Gerry’s little jug. It is a gracefully shaped jar or pot, about 
nine and one half inches high, with handles for carrying. It is of red 
ware, lead-glazed. This piece belonged to Sarah Ostrander, wife of 
Peter Ostrander. Mrs. Ostrander died in 1827, and her husband in 
the following year — the same year in which Captain Norton died. 
The jar had long belonged to Mrs. Peter Ostrander and had been 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 7 


treasured by members of the Ostrander family for considerably more 
than a century before it passed into my possession. Its original owner, 
Mrs. Peter Ostrander, gave it to her daughter, charging her to pre- 
serve it carefully because it was made by Captain John Norton. The 
Ostrander jar has long been known locally as one of the few pieces 
undoubtedly made at the first pottery. Its date is certainly not later 
than 1800. 

Somewhat earlier, I am disposed to think, is an old milkpan associ- 
ated with the name of Asahel Wright, one of the pioneer settlers of 
Hubbardton, Vermont. Wright, a native of Lenox, Massachusetts, 
located at Hubbardton and built a log house as early as 1774. He 
returned to Massachusetts when the war broke out and served six 
years in the Revolutionary Army. In 1787 he returned to his claim at 
Hubbardton. Because of the fact that he used a pair of stags in 
harness to draw in logs he attained considerable notoriety. To the end 
of his long life of ninety-seven years the sturdy old pioneer treasured a 
milkpan of red ware, salt-glazed, which he said he had carried, with 
other things, on horseback from Bennington a few years after his re- 
turn to Hubbardton. The old milkpan is quite like a number of others 
that have been found in the locality, and there is nothing save Asahel 
Wright’s story to identify it. Yet there appears no good reason to 
doubt that it is one of the few pieces which can be definitely attributed 
to Captain John Norton’s Pottery during the first five years of its 
existence. 

Mrs. Luman S. Norton, of Bennington, has two interesting pieces 
which have been treasured in the family as products of the original 
Norton Pottery. The cup-shaped vase [Plate IT] was owned originally by 
Julia Knox Pratt, who was born in 1789 and died in 1873. It descended 
to her great-granddaughter, Elizabeth Pratt Norton. This vase is 


8 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


unlike any other piece of early Vermont pottery known to me. The 
body is rather lighter in color than is customary in ordinary brown or 
red ware, and it is lead-glazed. 

The other piece [Plate II] was given to the late Luman Spooner Norton 
by Miss Julia Bingham, one of Bennington’s well-known and honored 
residents until her death some years ago. It came to Miss Bingham 
from her mother, Mrs. Sophronia Dewey Bingham, who was born in 
1791 and was married in 1820. This specimen is thinner than any 
other piece of the early brown ware that I have come across and is 
exceedingly light in weight. I judge that this piece and the vase as 
well belong to a somewhat later period than the other two, perhaps 
1810-1820. 

In addition to the foregoing, several examples of pottery have been 
either ploughed up or dug up near the site of the second works (1823- 
1833). It is a tolerably fair presumption that most of these were made 
on the premises. So far as is known at present, however, the only 
specimens from the original pottery concerning whose history there is 
indisputable evidence are those above described. Neither these nor 
any of the fragments that have been ploughed or dug up show any 
trace of a pottery mark, and we are justified in assuming that none 
was used during the early years. In keeping with one of the universal 
practices of the trade, jugs and other utensils were sometimes marked 
with the name or the initials of the person for whom they were made. 
None of the marked pieces made at the first Norton Pottery has sur- 
vived, so far as is known. Possibly they all encountered the fate of 
Hiram Harwood’s jugs as told in the following entries: 


1821. Nov. 19. We worked half a day on the highway and were allowed for 
it by Capt. N. & Sons. Settled accounts with friend Luman.... SettleT. 
being ended assisted him in marking an unburnt galln. jug the initials of my 
name & the year being inscribed on the bott. of it. 


VERMONT’S FIRST POTTERY 9 


1821. Friday, Dec. 14: Looked for sheep — father & I together — were 
at Luman’s* shop awhile — Saw Capt. N.,f L. & J.{ & old Mr. Bovee & 
Capt. D. N. Bratt after brandy. L. & I talked of books — marked a jug 
‘Tsis « i 


1822. Tuesday, Fan. 22: Didn’t see Luman — visited the shop with Corey, 
Henry & Parsons boys — marked another gall jug because Aust. Dimm’k 
had broken my 3 qt. one. 


1822. Friday, Fune 14: Our ladies visited Uncle Sam’s — broke a galon 
jug marked ‘H. H.’ filled with molasses, which however they saved as only 
the nuzzle and handle were broken off — we raved awhile on the subject and 
let it pass for a bad bargain. 


1822. Saturday, October 12th. ... Capt. Norton informed me that he was 
a soldier on Long Island in 1776 — was in that masterly retreat from that 
place under Washington — more he told me but I do not recollect nor have 
I time to record it. Had a gallon jug at Norton’s which Norman had curi- 
ously marked with the initials of my name and the word ‘Rum’ annexed. 

A large stoneware cider jar, with two handles and a place for a 
spigot, is marked J. Judd, Jr. Bennington. [Plate III.] This piece has been 
attributed to the original pottery of Captain Norton, but erroneously. 
Isaac Judd, Jr., was born in 1811, and was, therefore, a lad of twelve 
when Captain Norton retired from the pottery business in 1823. It is 
exceedingly improbable that a six-gallon cider jug would have been 
made for such a lad. It is much more likely that the jar was made 
between 1830 and 1835 — perhaps soon after the Pottery was removed 
to the lower village in 1833. This jar is especially interesting from the 
fact that it is one of the rare examples of Bennington stoneware in 
which the design was incised and partly filled with cobalt before 
firing. The potting is admirable and the design shows greater pre- 
cision than is usual in ware of this kind. 


* Oldest son of Capt. Norton. ¢ Idem. 
t John, second son of Capt. Norton. 


10 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Outside the meager family records and the recorded deeds that give 
dates of property transfers, we are indebted for most of our knowledge 
of Captain Norton to the remarkable diaries kept by Benjamin Har- 
wood and his son Hiram. From these it is possible to obtain a fairly 
complete picture of the man himself, his family life and his enterprise. 
Concerning no other early American potter is our information so 
extensive. 

Benjamin Harwood was the first child born in the town of Benning- 
ton, the date of his birth being January 12, 1762.* He was past 
twenty-three years of age, therefore, when Captain Norton came to 
occupy the neighboring farm, and thirty-one when the latter started 
his pottery. The elder Harwood began his diary in 1805 and continued 

it for about four years | when the task was turned over to his son Hi- 
ram, who continued it to 1837. Hiram was a much more copious diarist 
than his father, a man of more diversified interests. It would appear 
that nothing of importance ever escaped the younger man’s attention. 
Benjamin was content to record the incidents connected with the life 
of his farm and his family. It is not surprising, therefore, that he does 
not even mention the pottery of his neighbor and friend. His refer- 
ences to Captain Norton have to do only with farming and trading: 


This day Capt. Norton inoculated several trees in my young orchard. 
— August 30, 1806. 

I dont think there are many orchards of the same bigness with so much 
bad tasted fruit in them, but I have promised myself that, if I live till next 
spring, and have the care of this orchard, that it shall be ingrafted with 
better fruit. There are a number of grafts or scions, in many of the trees, but 
they are not old enough yet to produce any fruit. Capt. Norton put them in 
about two years ago, he has this year inoculated many of the trees. (See 3oth 
of Augu‘, page 39.) — September 20, 1806. 


* Isaac Jennings: Memorials of a Century, p. 22. 
¢ In his own handwriting little more than a year — the son then acting as scribe. 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY II 


Made a rough cast on the sum received of Capt. Norton for a mare I sold 
him in June last, which amounts to thirty-six dollars and sixty-nine cents — 
15 Ds in cash and the other in merchandise. — August 10, 1810. 

What appears to be the first entry concerning the pottery was made 
by Hiram later in the same year — October 23, 1810: 

This morning father sent off 44 bushels of wheat to Troy by three waggons 
— two of which belong to Capt. Norton. — They carry wheat for father 
and he brings back a load of clay for them — or at least causes it to be bro’t 
by Ira who went with his team. 


With the cart and oxen I carried Capt. Norton’s fanning mill home — I 
should rather say to Mr. Mellen’s barn. 


This entry is interesting in that it bears upon the subject of the kind 
of ware that was made by Captain Norton. For ordinary red ware — 
or brown ware, as it was more often called — it would have been fool- 
ish to draw clay from Troy. For such ware there was an abundance of 
clay close to the pottery on Captain Norton’s own land. Clay was dug 
there for many years. It is evident that the Troy clay was wanted 
either for ‘slip-covering’ or for stoneware bodies. Until well past the 
middle of the nineteenth century it continued to be the practice for 
drivers of teams sent to Troy or Albany with ware to stop wherever 
they saw a cellar being dug, and, if they found clay, to offer to load up 
with it. Thus the builder was saved the expense of hauling and clay 
for ‘slip’ or for stoneware body was obtained without cost to the 
pottery. 

There is a tradition that, during the first seven years, red earthen- 
ware only was made by Captain Norton, and that, in 1800, the first 
stoneware was manufactured, an additional kiln being erected for that 
purpose. This tradition is wholly unsupported by documentary evi- 
dence of any kind. There is not a scrap of such evidence in any of the 
papers possessed by the Norton family, nor has the most diligent 


12 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


search of contemporary newspapers revealed anything of the sort. 
Nevertheless, the tradition may be accepted as substantially correct. 
The authenticated specimens of pottery that have survived are of red 
earthenware. Furthermore, red earthenware was much easier to make 
than stoneware. It was simpler to burn, and the kiln for its firing was 
cheaper and easier to build. Virtually all of the early potteries began 
with the red or brown earthenware; and it is reasonable to believe that 
Captain Norton confined himself to that ware at first, adding a stone- 
ware kiln somewhat later. 

That there were two kilns is quite evident from some of the entries 
made by Hiram Harwood in his diaries, for he is careful to particular- 
ize as to when he found the Nortons working upon earthenware and 
when upon stoneware. Here is a typical entry, dated Friday, August 
23, I8II. 


I enjoyed my friend James’ company, and with him went to Capt. 
Norton’s shop that he might see them turning ware, of that however he was 
disappointed, Mr. Luman, who generally worked at that business, being 
absent. Capt. Norton was there burning a kiln of brown ware and entered 
into conversation with us which happened to turn on the weather in the 
Summer as well as in the Winter; It was remarked that the sun seemed to 
have very little influence at that season of the year... Capt. N. said it did 
not give out much more heat than a yellow dog hung up in its stead. 


If the characteristics of the diarist are taken into account, the fact 
that he specifically mentions that it was ‘a kiln of brown ware’ which 
the good Captain was burning would justify the conclusion that there 
were at least two kilns at that time. We are not dependent upon such 
inferences, however. Many other entries scattered through the closely 
written pages of the diary abundantly prove that there were two kilns, 
one for each kind of ware. Of course, this accords with the general 
practice of the industry. 

In the diary for 1815 there is an entry, dated January 6th, showing 


ee 


VERMONT’S FIRST POTTERY 13 


that on that day Hiram Harwood wrote to N. Judd, a potter, residing 
at Rome, New York, concerning their mutual friends Captain and 
Luman Norton, that ‘they were making ware, of both kinds, stone and 
clay, very fast.’ Then, under date of April 10, 1816, he notes that they 
were ‘burning brown ware kiln.” On November 22, 1820, he records 
that he ‘Paid a friendly visit to fr’d L. Norton — play’d the flute — 
bo’t stone pot for 4/o.” Another entry, dated July 18, 1821, refers 
again to brown ware: ‘On our return called a mom’t at Capt. N’s — 
found him heating a kiln of brown ware — some lively things were said 
& we departed.’ On Monday, December 31, 1821, the record reads, 
‘Made it our chief business to collect strays from our flock — 3 from 
Capt. N’s (where they were setting the stone kiln — rec’d a Id of corn 
from Col. Brownell who came out with it himself).’ 

It is believed that Captain Norton and his sons made brick and 
burned lime. Evidences of brick-making have been found upon the 
original Captain Norton farm, lately known as the Tudor farm. Under 
date of December 14, 1832, Hiram Harwood notes that ‘trees were 
felled on the hill W. of the limekiln of 1794-5.’ There are a number of 
references to the purchase of bricks at Captain Norton’s. For ex- 


ample, in 1818 we read: 


Saturday, December 12:... Bo’t at capt. Norton’s 130 bricks at $1.00 
pr hun’d & 1 bush! lime at the limekiln for setting up the stove. 


The younger Isaac Jennings quotes from the same diarist the follow- 


ing note, dated December 26, 1818: 


This day drew from Capt. Norton’s one hundred and fifty bricks and one 
and a half bushels lime to the meeting-house where E. Montague built a 
short chimney. The stove was set up on a high box level with the top railing 
of the pews, the pipe standing perpendicular. After its completion fire was 
kindled in the stove and operated well.* 


* Isaac Jennings: The Old Meeting House, p. 44. 


14 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Reference has already been made to the fact that the red ware was 
sometimes lead-glazed. The Ostrander jar already described * is, un- 
doubtedly lead-glazed. It is probable that by far the larger part of the 
output of such domestic utensils as milkpans and platters were so 
finished. Although Pitkin notes } the fact that several pieces of ware 
made at the original pottery were known to exist, he could not have 
examined them, otherwise he could not have written that ‘only salt- 
glazed ware was produced’ at the first pottery. The surviving speci- 
mens speak for themselves; but, to place the matter beyond dispute, 
here is a note from the Harwood diary for Wednesday, April 25, 1827: 


Visited the shop of L. Norton — in the road talked a good deal with the 
Capt., who could not see through the mysterious changes in doctrines now 
preached up — talked awhile with our old friend L. who was washing milk 
pans with red lead. Visited the house & got papers — went to the corn 
house where they were thrashing Ind. corn in a kind of box with a bottom 
calculated for letting through the corn & retaining the cobs. 

That they also made salt-glazed ware is equally certain. The red 
-— or brown — ware was lead-glazed as a rule, though ‘slip’ was some- 
times used. Under date of March 20, 1826, the same patient chronicler 
tells us that he ‘March’d to the shop of L. & J. Norton. Saw friend 
John throwing salt into the hot kiln. Esqt. Bates appeared to be tend- 
ing the fire.’ 

We can hardly know too much concerning our early industries and 
the manner of their development, and we may well be grateful for the 
industry and persistence with which our diarist wrote of men and 
events as he saw them. He heard and saw everything, and forgot 
nothing. The thousands of pages that he wrote, many of them now so 
faded as to be almost illegible, give us such a picture of life in early 
Vermont as can be found nowhere else. It is to be hoped that they will 


* See p. 6. } Pitkin, op. cit., p. 17. 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 15 


be published and so rescued from obliteration. Even such items as the 
following note from the diary for 1816 are of value to the student: 
Monday, March 18th:... Carried to L. Norton’s, this morning, Sophia 
W’s foot wheel — Sarah sent her a thousand million thanks for the use of it. 
Visited the ship — Friend L. and his father were taking down some frozen 
green ware, spoiled by the frost — The boys had been in the shop Sabbath- 


day and left the door unlatched. Nothing of the kind had occurred since the 
completion of the cell, 4 Winters past. 


There are no records extant which enable us to determine with 
accuracy at what date Captain Norton took his two sons into partner- 
ship with him. We shall not be far wrong, however, if we say that it 
was probably in 1811 or 1812. This conjecture is based principally 
upon the fact that, up to 1812, Hiram Harwood always refers to the 
pottery as ‘Capt. Norton’s.’ From 1812 to 1823 he refers to it vari- 
ously as ‘Capt. Norton and Sons,’ ‘J. & L. Norton’s,’ and ‘The 
Nortons.’ This statement is subject to some qualification, however. 
For instance, there is an entry, dated June 24, 1815, in which ‘Captain 
Norton’s Pottery’ is referred to: 

Between 4 & 5 p.M. entered Capt. Norton’s Pottery — Staid half an hour 
and saw nobody — Wrote a few words expressive of my astonishment at not 
seeing friend Luman laboring at his wheel, so rare was the instance. What 
surprised me more was, to find an open bowl standing on his mould bench, 
with paper money in it. 

Now, at this time Captain Norton and his two sons were in partner- 
ship, the firm’s name being John Norton & Sons. It may well be that 
the oldest son, Luman, was first taken into partnership with his father 
and the firm name of J. & L. Norton adopted. John’s, the second 
son’s, admission to partnership later on probably necessitated the 
change of the firm name to John Norton & Sons. This, however, is 
merely conjecture. Removals and disastrous fires destroyed the early 


16 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


business records of the Nortons and there exist no known records of 
any kind which would enable us to determine the matter with finality. 
Perhaps it is immaterial. 

It is known that in 1815 Captain Norton and his two sons, Luman 
and John, were acting in partnership, the firm name being John 
Norton & Sons. No piece of pottery bears the mark of this firm, but 
there exists an old receipted bill, dated July 21, 1815, which shows that 
William Henry, Esqr., bought wares from the firm of John Norton & 
Sons to the value of $20.51. The bill is interesting and valuable for the 
information it affords concerning the types of ware made and the 
prices charged for them. Mr. Henry purchased the following items: 


12 Doz. Milk Pans @ 9/ $18.00 
‘\ ‘Large \Platterst 2G) see 


tT). sand; Sizes ts ge oh) eeu 
I ec 3rd. «e¢ “ce “ce 4/ 0.67 
$20.51 


The partnership of Captain Norton and his two older sons em- 
braced more than the pottery business. It covered the farming and 
the distillery business as well. Captain Norton, besides assisting at 
the pottery, was principally responsible for the management of the 
distillery. When his youngest child, Norman J. Norton, who was born 
in 1806, grew old enough, he assisted his father in this work. From 
about 1812 Luman was primarily concerned with managing the pot- 
tery, while John, who was two years his junior, managed the farm. 
There was a good deal of overlapping, but in general the labors were 
divided as stated. In 1823 the copartnership of father and sons was 
dissolved by mutual consent, and a division of the firm’s properties 
was amicably arranged. The Harwood diary for 1823, contains this 
record — dated April 11th: 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 17 


Capt. Norton & his Sons lately dissolved partnership — Capt. N. takes 
his old farm and the Still — Luman takes the pottery with the S. third of the 
Atwood farm — John takes the other two-thirds & continues in the pottery 
with his brother — farther I am not able to state. 


Actually Luman received a three-fourths interest in the pottery, 
John receiving the other fourth and remaining in the business for some 
time as partner. Soon afterward the pottery was moved to a new site. 
The old pottery had stood a little to the north of Captain Norton’s 
house, on the site of what was later known as the ‘ Davenport house,’ 
and still more recently, as the ‘Tudor house.” Luman moved the 
establishment farther south, to his own property. This second site 
was opposite the house, which he had erected for himself in 1817, 
known to old residents of Bennington as the ‘Rockwood farmhouse.’ 
Two entries from the Harwood diaries bear upon this phase of our 
history: 


All hands went to L. Norton’s raising. Through misunderstanding 
between Oliver Abel & L. Taft, his head carpenter at this building, the front 
part (42 x 26) only was raised — Being in height two stories — The 
kitchen and woodhouse were raised next day. Ephraim Smith Esqr. who 
attended among others and appeared in a very unusual strain of playful 
gaiety and good humor died very suddenly about 8 in the evening, in an 
apoplectic fit — Sixty years of age in April last.” * — May g, 1817. 


Accompanied Montague to Major L. Norton’s — They were sometime in 
trying to make a bargain about laying the walls of the great old shop which 
L. intended in May or June to remove on to his part of the Atwood farm just 
above Machey’s. They could not agree whether it should be by the job or 
by the day — $20 parted them — L. offered him $50 — Montague asked 
$70 — The only thing they finally established was that M. should have the 
job at all events. At the time Mrs, N. had her dinner ready M. L. Selden 
came to get bricks for the furnace which they had lately blown out, to fix the 
hearth — Our friend went to wait on him — M. & I sat down to dinner — 


* This Ephraim Smith was the father of the wife of John Norton, Jr. He and his father, 
John Smith, were both in the Battle of Bennington. 


18 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Luman returned with an Englishman who transacted business for Hunt — 
who had just rec’d bricks to the am’t, I think, of $13 — 874 at o/g a piece. 
I got a two gall. jug which was included in our settl’mt (p. 318) — had put 
in it 2 galls high wines — equal to 24 reduced. — March 12, 1823. 


... Carried List for 1823 to L. Norton one of the Listers. ... Visited 
capt. N. & Z. Pierce. Luman was by his wheel in his new situation N. of 
Mackey’s. The whole establishment was now removed & removing to sd 
spot. — Wednesday, Fuly g, 1823. 


These entries are significant in that they enable us to determine a 
matter long in dispute locally. One tradition has named the Tudor 
farm as the site of the original pottery, while another has named the 
Rockwood farm. What appear to be remains of kilns have been found 
in both places, and as a result there has been no little uncertainty with 
regard to the matter. Thanks to the good Hiram Harwood, we can 
regard the question as definitely settled. 

After the removal of the pottery building to its new site, Captain 
Norton is rarely mentioned in connection with it. There is one entry 
in the diary for 1825, however, which would seem to indicate that, 
notwithstanding the dissolution of the partnership, the Captain and 
his two sons, on occasion, still acted jointly, under the old firm name, 
as though there had been no dissolution: _ 


Tuesday, Nov. 22: In the eveg I settled accounts in full with Majr. L. 
Norton. We rec’d credit for cider 1890 gallons — 2 less than my minutes 
shewed — that is $9 bbls 2 Gs. His book acct against us from Nov. 11, 1823 
to this date arose to $7.10 — my charge was only a flat file — .go, which 
reduced his demand to $6.60, which I balanced with cider at 87% per bbl — 
say 734 bbls. The price I did not much like — but could do no better — & 
there was rec’d in Nov. & Dec. 1823 IG 3 qts.1pt. more brandy than our due, 
which being subtracted from what was now coming — there remained due 
88 galls. & 1 pt., for which rec’d due-bill signed J. Norton & Sons. The 
remainder of the eveg taken up with conversing about the N. River — the 
situation of N. Y. City, Staten Island, the Theatres in N. Y. &c &c. 


— ee 


— a 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 19 


Other entries show that, notwithstanding the division made in 1823, 
the several Norton enterprises, and the Norton interests in general, 
remained interlocked almost, if not quite, as closely as before. Cus- 
tomers who owed for wares supplied by the pottery firm delivered 
cider to Captain Norton at his distillery in payment, and debts to 
Captain Norton the distiller were paid by supplying goods or giving 
service to the pottery firm which was known both as L. & J. Norton 
and as L. Norton & Co. The Norton family interests and enterprises 
at this time were extensive and varied. In combinations of members 
and under trade-names as varied, they embraced farming, distilling, 
blacksmithing, storekeeping, and pottery manufacture, as well as 
other business activities. 

From 1823 to the end of 1827 the pottery was owned and operated 
by the two sons, Luman and John. I believe the earliest mark used is 
that of LZ. Norton & Co. Pieces so marked are occasionally found. 
They belong to the period 1823-1827. Thereafter, throughout the 
whole history of the pottery industry in Bennington — so far as the 
Norton Potteries were concerned, at any rate — this practice of mark- 
ing the wares was maintained. Consequently, from this point onward, 
we can ascribe approximate dates to most of the wares produced. 

Hiram Harwood, despite his habitual precision in such matters of 
detail, refers to the pottery during this period in such a variety of 
ways as to suggest that he was not always sure how things stood or 
how the firm should be designated. Under date of August 25, 1825, he 
writes: ‘Father rode to L. Nort’s in the big wagg. accomp? by litt. 
Hopkins & bro’t home a crate of ware made by L. N. & Co. for S. 
Waters now Mrs. Ashley.’ On March 20, 1826, he refers to the pottery 
as ‘Maj. L. N’s’; on May 8, 1826, he refers to it as ‘L. & J. Norton’s 
pottery’; on November 10, 1826, he speaks of the ‘shop of L. & J. 


20 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Norton’ and describes the operations going on there. On March 8, 
1827, he describes a meeting with Esquire Bates who ‘said he had 
watched last night with L. & J. Norton’s kiln.’ But, on April 25th of 
the same year, he writes that he ‘visited the shop of L. Norton,’ and 
then, on June 18, 1827, he records that ‘Damia & mother went abroad 
together they bro’t from L. Norton & Co’s a stone churn & other 
articles.” Finally, we have this record made on July 16, 1827: ‘My 
little boy visited by my request Maj. L. Norton’s & returned with 3 
N. Y. pap’s. he particularly described in what manner he saw them 
making pans at the Maj’s shop.’ 

The co-partnership between Luman and John Norton was termin- 
ated at or near the end of 1827, and Luman became sole proprietor. 
What arrangement was made between them we do not know. That it 
was amicable and mutually satisfactory is evident from the subsequent 
history of the two. We may conjecture, upon the basis of facts known 
to us, that John did not care for the business in which his older 
brother found such keen delight. Be that as it may, our concern is 
with the fact that, when the year 1828 opened, Luman Norton was 
sole proprietor of the pottery. He pursued the practice of stamping 
his wares with his name. All pieces bearing the name L. Norton were 
made in the period 1828-1833, for, in the latter year, Luman Norton 
took his son Julius into partnership, as we shall see later on, and the 
firm name became L. Norton & Son. 

Soon after John’s withdrawal from the partnership, Luman began 
to improve and to extend the business, thus inaugurating a policy 
of progressive improvement which lasted over many years. Julius, 
Luman’s only son, was at this time — 1828 — in his nineteenth year. 
He had shown himself to be possessed of both a liking for the potter’s 
trade and an aptitude for business. Intensely proud of his son, Luman 





VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 21 


Norton was, we may surmise, to no small degree influenced by the 
consciousness that the young man was rapidly reaching an age at 
which he might be expected to assume a large part of the burden and 
responsibility of a growing business. An entry made by Hiram Har- 
wood in his diary for June 27, 1829, tells us that he ‘rode with Syl- 
vanus to major L. Norton’s where the maj. with Montague & journey- 
man was employed in building a brown-ware kiln.’ This was probably 
an additional kiln, for at this time we note an increase in the number 
of men employed. 

Judged by the standards of later days, the pottery industry in 
Bennington prior to 1830 was so small in its scope as to be almost 
insignificant. During its first thirty years — from 1793 to 1823 — 
there is little likelihood that, at any one time, more than six hands had 
been employed, including Captain Norton himself and his two older 
sons. As already noted, in 1828 the business passed into the hands of 
Luman Norton. In the Vermont Gazette, January 11, 1831, was 
published a ‘Bennington Business Directory for 1831.’ Its description 
of the pottery reads as follows: ‘One Stone Ware Manufactory. — 
L. Norton. Employs 12 hands.’ 

Small and unimportant as this seems to us nowadays, we must re- 
member what was the condition of Vermont nearly a century ago. A 
pottery employing half a dozen men would measure well above the 
average of the potteries that were scattered throughout New York 
and New England. Furthermore, it would be capable of turning out 
a volume of wares such as would seem almost incredible to the unin- 
itiated. Various records in the diaries of Hiram Harwood demonstrate 
this. I cite a few examples: 

Staid after dinner, sometime in the shop. A Mr. Stone from Arlington 


took off a load of ware — Saw several orders from merchants in different 
towns for ware, yet to be answered. — Fune 13, 1815. 


22 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


1819. Saturday, December 18: Settled accounts with capt. Norton... . Mr. 
Godfrey came there to get a load of ware to carry to Lenox Furnace to 
exchange for stoves &c. 


... Visited friend Luman N.— Montague and John Jr. were present. 
We talked of History, the Iliad, Gods and Godesses &c in fact we could 
hardly break off for other concerns — I left them loading ware & came home. 
— Sunday, May 28, 1820. 


Spent the eveg at Capt. Norton’s very agreeably — played the flute — 
an amusement not often taken up these days — Luman & John packed a Id 
of ware bound to Berlin, N. Y. — Searls & Deacon E. Fay were present at 
the shop. — Monday, Nov. 17, 1823. 


...L. & J. Nort. Jr. were preparing a load of ware for W. Creek. 
— Thursday, Apr. 29, 1824. 


...C. Brown arrived from Berlin much agitated about paying for his 
horse and wagg. — considered himself ill used — p?¢ $1.75 for 21 miles — the 
terms were 8¢ pr mile — he bro’t news of my friend Luman Norton, who was 
on his way to N. York, falling from his wagg. & breaking his left arm — on 
the roadsto \lroye gees eee was seated on the top of a load of ware 
— the wheels suddenly falling into a deep rut occasioned the catastrophe. 
— Wednesday, May 19, 1824. 


Walked to Capt. Norton’s — visited L. N. — found him engaged with the 
ad. Vol. of State Papers, U. S. — my visit was rather spoiled by their (L. & 
J.) * being obliged to continue about carrying off ware. — Sunday, Fuly 11, 
1824. 


Returning from Troy on Wed’y the 6th near the summit of the hill just 
mentioned met my fr’d Judd, had not time to speak with him J. Nort. & 
Hummiston were in rear with loads of stone ware. — Saturday, October 9, 
1824. 


...met J. Norton Jr. & B. Loomis with their (team) returning from 
carrying off ware to Woodstock, Vt. — February 10, 1827. 


Evening with Geo & Hopkins visited maj. L. Norton & people — Julius, 


* Luman and John. 


VERMONT’S FIRST POTTERY 23 


Bates, &c. were making fine music. (Jas. P. Godfrey having returned from 
trip of carrying off ware made settlet with’ maj. L.) that business being 
ended drew up and made settl* in full with him for ware had since he was 
last paid in Jan. of the present year — amt’g to $6.33. — Saturday, Dec. 24, 
1830. 


After starting home was overtaken and conveyed by our neighbor J. Pitts 
Godfrey, who was on his return from carrying a load of ware to Chesterfield 
N. H. in wagg. to Mr. Fay’s where I called and paid Mrs. Lydia Fay $4., 
Bennington money towards weaving. — Fanuary 6, 1831. : 

In addition to sending loads of wares to neighboring towns, the 
establishment catered to the community, supplying most, if not all, of 
the local demand for such domestic utensils as were made there. 
People went to the pottery to buy what they needed, and, judging by 
the purchases made for the Harwood household, the total volume of 
this trade must have been considerable. Turning over the pages of 
the old diaries from which I have quoted so much, without making any 
effort to tabulate all the purchases of earthenware and stoneware 
utensils therein recorded, I note the purchase of quart and two-quart 
jugs (1815), milkpans and slop-bowls (1818), butter pots and preserve 
pots (1821), wash-bowl (1822), Dutch pan (1825), stone churn (1827), 
large milkpans in half-dozen and one and two dozen lots (1817, ’18, 
°22, 25, 26, 27, 28, ’29), six-gallon pot (1829), two-gallon pot (1830), 
crock and four-gallon pot (1831). Add to these the large jugs else- 
where mentioned by the same writer, the platters of different sizes 
enumerated in the Henry bill, the other items of a similar character to 
which reference has been made, and the casual mention of milk pails 
being turned — the result is an illuminating list, which shows how im- 
portant the industry must have been to the community. 

The items mentioned are typical, and they prove that the products 
of the pottery were important from a purely utilitarian point of view. 


24 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Pewter was both too expensive and too heavy for many purposes, 
besides being unsuited to not a few of the uses to which earthenware 
or stoneware was adapted. Tinware was not cheap and abundant as it 
was destined later to be. 

Of course, we labor under the disadvantage of having only the 
account of a single family’s purchases. Were it possible to obtain a 
score of diaries like Hiram Harwood’s, we should find, doubtless, that 
practically every family represented in them made similarly liberal 
purchases at the pottery. Here is an entry from the Harwood diary 
for the year 1822, which gives a glimpse of the retail trading at the 
pottery itself: 


Fuly 25: Visited L. Nort. with whom as usual talked of books &c. Rey- 
nolds Carpenter called — L. enquired earnestly as to the success of the 
subscription for the new publication — did not distinctly hear the reply. 
Old Mr. Martindale came to buy ware — Brown, Temple of Wlooldflorld 
& H. Potter were there. A negro man sold a few whortle-berries — took his 
pay in ware. 


According to present standards, there is something ludicrous in the 
spectacle of the negro peddler trading whortle-berries for crockery. 
We must bear in mind, however, that money was scarce in those days 
and that a considerable part of the trade of the people took the form 
of simple barter. It was common for customers to pay for their pots 
and pans with cider, beef, wood, apples, cheese, and so on. Some- 
times they paid with labor. A typical transaction is recorded by 
Hiram Harwood in the following entry, dated October 20, 1829: 


Agreed to furnish major L. Norton with 12 bbls cider at 4/o per bbl in 
payment of a ware debt and for what I might call for over and above that. 
Should not have contracted so low if I had not supposed the article to be 
unusually plenty — for he told me he could buy as much as he pleased at 
3/0, payable in ware. 


VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 25 


It is worth while noting the prices that were charged for the various 
wares. In the Henry bill, milkpans are charged at $1.50 per dozen, 
‘large platters’ at $1.00 per dozen, medium-sized at 84 cents, and 
small ones at 67 cents per dozen. That was in 1815. In the Harwood 
diary for 1818 we note, under date of September 3oth, this entry: 


This morning went to capt. Norton’s — received 14 doz. milk pans & 2 
slop bowls on friend Champney’s acct. — amounting to $1.25. They were 
burning the stone ware kiln. 


In 1821 butter pots and preserve pots were charged at nine pence 
each, for on November 21st of that year Hiram Harwood made this 
record: 


I visited Luman twice — got two butter pots of one of which made a crock 
— and two small preserve pots at o/g; the whole amtd to 3/6.* Mentioned 
to him that I was reading Prince Eugene. 


In 1822 the price of a wash-bowl was one shilling, according to this 
entry for November 11th: 


In the eveg settled accts at L. Norton’s — found due for 1821, 62 glls. 
3 qrts brandy — and for 1822 after deducting 9 gs. 1qt. & pt. for ware ($4.93) 
46. .1. .o — Talked over many old things, bo’t a wash-bowl at 1/o & came 
home 

Prices did not change much during the first forty years, judging by 
such records as we have. 

So far as is now known, no ornamental wares of any kind were 
produced at the first pottery. The age was one of utility pure and 
simple, with little time for ornament or thought concerning it. The 
practice of decorating stoneware jugs, pots, crocks, churns, and other 
articles with designs representing birds, animals, fruits, and flowers, 
done in cobalt or raw umber, was adopted later. Pieces marked L. 


Norton &8 Co., made from 1823 to 1828, are frequently so decorated. 


* The figures in the diary appear to be 8/6. Probably what looks like an ‘8’ was intended 
to be a ‘3.’ 


26 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


The only evidence of such ornamentation in the wares produced 
during the first thirty years is the crude but pleasing bit of decoration 
upon the little jug that Abel Wadsworth made for his ten-year-old 
friend, Omindia Armstrong, in 1798 or thereabouts. Art has been 
defined as ‘the little extra flourish which a man adds to his work.’ 
Judged by that definition, the little friendship token made by Abel 
Wadsworth is the one example of that early craftsmanship touched 
with conscious art. Let it be added, however, that the other early 
pieces are characterized by a grace of line which makes them things of 
simple beauty. 

It would appear from the scanty records which we now possess that, 
from 1828 to the end of 1832, the manufacture of stoneware increased 
at the Norton Pottery and that of red earthenware declined in relative 
importance. To improve the quality of his product the enterprising 
potter went farther afield for his clay. Although the statement has 
often been made that, as early as 1800-1802, clay from Long Island 
and New Jersey was used, there is no evidence of it, and we may dis- 
miss the statement as a mere conjecture. Neither in the Harwood 
diaries nor in any other contemporary records is there any mention of 
the transportation of clay from such a distance.* Not until toward the 
end of 1833 is there any positive evidence of the use of New Jersey 
clay. November 17, 1833, Hiram Harwood recorded that he was ‘very 
badly jolted coming from Troy with Mr. Scrivener — teamster of 
Stephen Dewey, 3 horses — wagg. loaded with about 16 hund. Amboy 
Clay for maj. L. Norton.’ It may well be that there were earlier im- 
portations of this clay, but it is unlikely that the material had been 
largely used much before that time. 


* Aldrich’s History of Bennington County says (p. 333), ‘Up to about 1825 native clay only 
was used in the manufacture of earthenware, but at that time the proprietors commenced 
using clays from South Amboy and Long Island, continuing, however, the partial use of the 
native material for some time.’ 


IT 
THE EARLY POTTERS 


E can hardly help being as much interested in the eariy 
potters of Bennington themselves, as in such examples of 
their work as have come down to us, or in the accounts of 
the industry penned by our indefatigable diarist. Who these men 
were, how they worked and lived, and in what manner they influenced 
the development of the industry in Vermont, cannot fail to interest us, 
if we are at all interested in this history. At all events, this book is 
concerned with the potters of Bennington as well as with their pottery. 


Captain Joun NorTon 

The first person to claim our attention, naturally, is the good 
Captain Norton himself. We have already learned enough of his 
ancestry to be prepared to find him ‘a man of parts,’ as the old saying 
has it. Of his youth we know very little. That he was a man of intelli- 
gence and ability, unusually well educated for his day, we are sure; 
but we do not know how or when or where he learned the potter’s 
trade. We may surmise, as Pitkin does, that he learned it at Lich- 
field, Connecticut, as an apprentice to some of the Lichfield potters.* 

A pottery had been established at Lichfield, an adjoining town to 
Goshen, five years before the birth of John Norton — in 1753. Its 
founder was John Pierce, and among those who worked at the Lich- 
field Pottery were Jesse Wadhams and Hervey Brooks. If we bear in 
mind that Captain Jonathan Buel — whose daughter Lucretia the 
young Captain John Norton married in 1782 — lived at Lichfield, we 

* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 16. 


28 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


shall not find it difficult to assume that the groom served his appren- 
ticeship to some of the Lichfield potters. 

Nine children were born to John and Lucretia Norton — four sons 
and five daughters, all of whom survived their father. As Hiram Har- 
wood, John’s friend and neighbor, duly noted in his diary, ‘His was 
the first death that occurred in his family during a course of 44 years.’ 
Although he lived to his seventieth year, and had quite a large number 
of grandchildren, he was never called upon to mourn the loss of child or 
grandchild. Because we are — or ought to be — as much interested 
in the man as in his work, I shall copy from Hiram Harwood’s diaries 
a few entries which will show something of the delightful character of 
his family life. There are not many equally attractive domestic ac- 
counts in early Vermont: 


1810. Wednesday, Dec. 5th: ... came to Capt. Norton’s and went into his 
son’s part of the house. Capt. Norton and Mr. Loomis were there. The 
former gentleman requested me to play on my flute. I granted it. After 
awhile friend John came down stairs; & in the course of the evening his three 
sisters took seats in the room. I kept up a pretty steady stream of music — 
perhaps rendered myself odious on that account, but I hope not. I had my 
notes with me and went over with several pieces of music with Miss Lucretia, 
who has a soft melodious voice. The girls scattered off — and in a little 
time I tucked up my spectacles and tune-book — and came whistling, mus- 
ing and fluting along home. 


1811. Saturday, March 16: I invited Mr. Locke to take a walk — ‘down 
South’ in the evening and so we did — and had music too. I fifed and he 
whistled. — O we marched along as happy, as happy as could be, — through 
the meadows and pastures. Back of Capt. Norton’s orchard we met with Mr, 
Luther Smith, who took my flute and joined us in our march. We wheeled 
to the left, round the S. W. corner of Capt. Norton’s barn — having pre- 
viously made a halt and consulted together about going into the house, to 
which I was opposed. Locke said he should not have come down there, had 
it not been for the sake of seeing the girls — he and Smith too, urged me very 
earnestly to go in, but I obstinately refus’d to comply. Our march was 
continued down by the house into the road. Smith and Locke went into the 


THE EARLY POTTERS 29 


house. Locke made a short tarry and came out and had a serious scuffle 
with Mr. Henry Mellen. I intended not to visit the house — sent word to 
Smith to borrow Mr. L. Norton’s flute and come and play a march or two 
with me, but I couldn’t start him. After amusing myself, and a few boys 
who came to hear me, with music, I was about to go home, but Mr. Luman, 
who had once before given me a call, came to the door and again invited me 
into his apartment. Locke, Mellen and I marched along in, and took seats. 
Mr. Elisha Smith, who I had not seen before in many months, was taking a 
game of chess with Mr. John Norton, Junr. Several tunes were blown out, 
some of which I did without assistance, others Mr. Luman helped me to 
perform. Capt. Norton called us up into his room, where I had the pleasure 
of seeing him encircled by his numerous and very respectable family — a 
sight which, in all probability cannot occur but seldom in a few short years 
— perhaps never again. Enjoy’d no small degree of pleasure in playing 
several pieces of music, in which I was joined, sometimes by Mr. Luman with 
his flute, and by his sister Lucretia, whose soft and melodious voice gave all 
the beauties and graces which belong’d to our concert. Having, as I suppos’d, 
worn out the patience of my hearers, I began to make preparations to depart, 
but Capt. Norton would not consent to have me go yet — said it was not 
late — and after some droll things were said — I had the question decided 
by hand-vote — in the negative. I gave them a few more tunes and then, in 
company with Mister Ault, Mr. Smith (who came with us only a little way) 
and Mr. Locke — came fifing and potching along the road as far as Mr. 
Ault’s, Mr. Ault having exercised the authority of a military officer in a very 
lively and spirited manner in the meantime; Now earnestly beset us to go to 
his house and take some cider with him, which we accordingly did and tarried 
there, I believe, two hours, hearing him relate some funny anecdotes. 
Twelve o’clock when I arrived home and had retir’d to rest. 


1813. Thursday, Fuly 29: Performed the greatest day’s work at mowing 
that I was ever the author of in my life. Carried violin and flute to Capt. 
Norton’s in the eve’g on which Smith and myself played 2 or 3 hours — 
Smith’s drollery provoked a great deal of laughter. 


1816. April 10: Found the 2 inch auger at Capt. Norton’s. Burning 
brown-ware kiln — Clarissa spinning — Eliza tow. Informed Capt. N. 
respecting Mr. West. 


1816. Saturday, October 19: The band met at Capt. Norton’s this evening 
— Young folks went to hear. 


30 VERMONT'S FIRST POTTERY 


1817. Thursday, Fuly 17, 1817: We generally attended a religious meeting 
at Capt. Norton’s — mother took care of the children. 


1821. Sunday, October 21:... heard a man halloo in the road half-way 
from Hunt’s to the Bluehill as if in distress — on enquiry found that it was 
Capt. Norton with his lady going to meeting in their 1 h. waggon. Their 
horse took fright at the carcase of Waters’ cow, became ungovernable — 
sheared off very abruptly — threw them from the wag. & broke out both 
thills, but without doing any other serious injury. Of course, the meeting- 
ride was at an end and they returned home. 


1827. Sunday, Fuly 22: Late in the day visited Capt. J. Norton — talked 
upon the Campaign of 1776 — he was at the battles of L. Island, Haarlem 
Height [sic!] & White Plains — recollected hearing the great guns at the seige 
of Ft. Washington. Saw and spoke with Mrs. C. Barney * whose health was 
poor — Borrowed N. Y. Spect. of July 10 & 13 & returned home after dark. 

While not a ‘Christian professor,’ to use a phrase common in his 
day, Captain John Norton was a stout upholder of the Christian 
Church. He was, according to all accounts, above everything else a 
reverent man. Religious services were held frequently at his home. 
He was one of the original square pew proprietors in the Church of 
Christ in Bennington, built in 1806, and a constant attendant at its 
services. At the same time he seems not to have refused to do business 
on Sundays when opportunity offered. 

He was a Freemason and a charter member of Temple Lodge, which 
was chartered by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut in 1793. Among 
the other members of this Lodge were several close friends: Anthony 
Haswell, Vermont’s pioneer printer and publisher, founder of the 
V ermont Gazette and the Rutland Herald; Joseph and David Fay; Noah 
Smith, the first Grand Master of Vermont; General David Robinson; 
Isaac Tichenor, elected Governor in 1797. If we are to judge a man by 
his friends, surely we must accord high rank to Vermont’s first potter. 


* Captain Norton’s daughter. 


Ee ee ee a eh ee 


THE EARLY POTTERS 31 


A genial man, fond of music, happiest when surrounded by his children 
and grandchildren; an ardent patriot, but quiet and unassuming 
withal; sagacious in business, persistent in industry, generous to a 
fault — such is the picture of the man that results from piecing to- 
gether the many fragments of information that have come down to 
us. Unlike his two older sons, he never aspired to public office. He 
was a simple, upright, progressive citizen, respected and beloved by 
his neighbors. A man of considerable education and a lover of books 
— a trait which he passed on to his children — it is not surprising to 
find that he was one of the directors of the first public library estab- 
lished in Bennington, in 1796.* Whether or not that was the first 
public library established in Vermont I am unable to state. Captain 
Norton took a keen interest in the Bennington Academy, of which his 
second son, John Norton, Jr., was one of the directors. 

Like most of the men who had participated in the great struggle for 
American independence, Captain Norton was an intense patriot. He 
attached great importance to the proper celebration of the ‘Glorious 
Fourth,’ the anniversary of Bennington Battle, and similar occasions. 
He gloried in marching with other veterans of the Revolutionary War 
to the Meeting House on the sixteenth of August, all wearing ever- 
green in their hats, afterward proceeding to the tavern to drink loyal 
and patriotic toasts. He loved to talk to younger men of the great 
events in which he had participated — the retreat from Long Island 
under General Washington, in 1776, the execution of André, and so 
on. We may be quite certain that he cherished for the all too brief 
remainder of his life the memory of his interview with Lafayette, in 
New York, July 4, 1825, when the famous French soldier conversed 
with him and his son Luman ‘in the most easy and familiar style.’ 

* John V. D. S. and Caroline R. Merrill: Historic Bennington, p. 59. 


32 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Writing in his diary under date of August 17, 1828, Hiram Harwood 
gives an account of his own last conversation with his old friend. It is 
perhaps worth while to transcribe enough of the account to complete 


the picture of the fine old patriot and pioneer potter: 


... got time to pay a short visit to our old friend and neighbor, Capt. 
Norton — which proved to be the last. We talked of the shortness of time 
— of the reputation of gen. E. Allen of Green Mountain Boy memory, for 
courage which had been disputed, but which our friend could not give up — 
something was said of Blennington] B[attle] grloun]Jd — particulars of the 
day were alluded to — said he had the pleasure of visiting it many years 
since in the company of gen. Sam. Safford, col. Joseph Safford, capt. Jacob 
Safford, Lieut. W. Henry and others who could very accurately describe the 
parts they severally acted, the situation of the enemy, etc. Capt. N. said it 
was really very entertaining to hear their relation of the deeds of that 
important day. The Capt. informed me that if he should live until the 29th 
of Nov. next, he should be 70 years of age — At the period of the battle he 
was not a resident of this town — commenced his residence here if I mistake 
not in the year 1784.* At Maj. L’s saw S. Loomis — Mrs. N. had very sore 
eyes — were getting better — borrowed papers — came home reading of 


gen. Jackson’s conduct at the Capital in March 1819 — showing the man’s 


character in full. 


Captain Norton did not survive long after the foregoing conversa- 
tion. He died August 24, 1828, in his seventieth year. The Vermont 
Gazette, the local newspaper founded by his old friend Anthony Has- 
well, in its issue of August 26, 1828, published the following announce- 
ment of his death: 

DIED 


In this town on Saturday night last, very suddenly, and without any 
previous sickness, Captain John Norton, aged 69 years. He went to rest in 
usual health, and was found a corpse in the morning. He was one of the most 
respectable of our citizens, and has left a numerous circle of relations and 
friends to lament their loss. This year has been remarkable for the coming of 
death in an unexpected hour; as if to exemplify the admonition — ‘in the 
midst of life we are in death.’ 


* An error, It was in 1785. 


Pardes 


THE EARLY POTTERS 33 


The faithful and methodical Hiram Harwood committed to the 
pages of his journal, under date of Sunday, August 24, 1828, a much 
fuller account of the death of his beloved and venerated friend. His 
description of the personal appearance of the old potter is the more 
interesting by reason of the fact that no portrait of him is known to 
exist, and this is the only description we have: 


Sunday, Aug. 24. The heat increased beyond what it was on the 23d. We 
were very early informed this morning of the sudden departure of our excel- 
lent friend & neighbor capt. John Norton to the World of Spirits. He died, 
as was supposed, in a fit of apoplexy, not however without some little notice 
of his illness. — He was taken about an hour previous to his exit, with 
a violent cough — which threw him into a kind of convulsion. Dr. Swift 
was sent for — meantime he became more easy, but ere the doctor arrived 
he was no more. So instantaneous and unexpected was the event that 
although Maj. L. Norton his eldest son was sent for with the utmost despatch 
— the distance being but short, he only got there in time to witness the 
final extinguishment of the lamp of life. 

On Saturday the deceased was observed to be unusually lively — seemed 
to enjoy a high flow of spirits — apparently in as good health as he had been 
for many months before, which made his family and friends very ill-prepared 
for the melancholy catastrophe. Thus has community suffered the loss of a 
most amiable man, beloved and respected by all who were so fortunate as to 
become acquainted with him. Had resided in this town a few months over 
43 years. Commenced his pottery on the spot where he lived and died. 
Raised a family of 9 children of unblemished reputation — 4 sons and 5 
daughters — all married excepting 2 & with the exception of Mrs. Hill, all 
inhabitants of Bennington — Mrs. Hill at no greater distance than Arlington 
Church. Prosperity had uniformly attended this family with but few ex- 
ceptions and those only of a pecuniary kind. 

Our departed friend himself never endured the frowns of fortune since 
coming to this town in any degree at all compared with what usually falls to 
the lot of many of our unhappy race. On the contrary, he seemed to pass 
gaily and cheerfully along the stream of life without caring to make more 
than a decent and respectable appearance, or feeling ambitious to acquire 
much wealth in order to dash out and make a grand display of the fripperies 
of this world. In common conversation he was a most agreeable, lively and 
instructive companion, always seasoning his discourse with some smart 


34 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


little anecdote or aptly introducing an unoffending pun or in some such way 
giving entertainment to persons of all descriptions & of whatever age with 
whom he associated. He never appeared to manifest any partialities on 
account of station in life; with him the poor and the rich were on even 
ground; merit constituted the only distinction he recognized in society. 
These are some of the principal traits in this good man’s character. 

With regard to property his circumstances were entirely unembarassed 
and independent. For the age of Capt. Norton turn to Aug. 17. He served a 
few campaigns in the Revolutionary Army, beginning with the eventful 
period of 1776 and ending with 1780 or ’81 — was at Long Island, Haarlem 
Heights, Whiteplains &c; saw Andre executed in the neighborhood of W. P. 
The scenes of his Revolutionary exploits I never heard him mention in 
regular order —if I had and could recollect them well enough, it would 
afford me real satisfaction to record the same in this humble repository of 
trifles. 

It is a singular fact that a man should live to the age at which Capt. N. 
arrived without being called, after seeing several of his children settled in life 
with a numerous offspring during a period of from 13 to Ig years, to mourn 
the loss of a single grandchild. His was the first death that occurred in his 
family during a course of 44 years. As to Religion it will be sufficient to say 
that he was not a Professor of Christianity, yet no one could find fault with 
his general course of life — was always of a friendly, manly, frank and noble 
disposition; his mind was too enlarged to permit him to stoop to the com- 
mission of an act of meanness in any circumstances whatever — fair and 
perfectly honorable in all his dealings amongst men. In short he was a good 
man in every sense of the word except that of being a ‘Christian.’ 

I was one of those who assisted in laying out the corpse — my services 
however were hardly worth mentioning. Mr. E. Fay Jun. was most active; 
those beside him were Mr. Loomis, Senr., S. Loomis, Dr. N. Swift, Mr. 
Fenton * I believe and near the end of the melancholy performance Lieut. 
Safffor]d & Capt. O. Abell. This day was passed afterwards in much the 
usual way with books & papers. In the evening offered to watch the corpse 
in conjunction with Mr. S. Loomis, but S. H. Brown and G. House relieved 
us from the task. Staid awhile conversing with neighbors Loomis and House 
and returned home. 

Some sort of description of the person of our departed friend must close 
these rude remarks. He was about 5 feet 10 inches in height — every way 
well-proportioned — serene cheerful countenance with a full expressive eye. 
I might if my abilities were equal to the task draw out this article to a very 


* Not Christopher W. Fenton, but his brother, Richard L. Fenton. See p. 48. 


ee ee ee a 


THE EARLY POTTERS 35 


considerable length, but must content myself with the feeble attempt 
exhibited above. One thing however is very necessary to mention — that 
for a number of the last years of his life he became very corpulent — walking 
any considerable distance say 40 or 50 rods became extremely irksome to 
him — suffered much from the asthma — weighed a few days previous to 


his decease 256 lbs. 

To the same chronicler we are indebted for an account of the old 
Captain’s funeral. It is an account which is of interest not only as a 
fitting close to our sketch of the life of Vermont’s first potter, but even 
more for the light it throws upon one phase of our religious history. 
The brief characterization of the sermon that was preached at the 
funeral reveals much of the harsh, austere, and unlovable character of 
the theology then prevailing. An old man lay dead and ready for 
burial. He had served in the Revolutionary War and had long been 
venerated as a patriot. He had lived in Bennington for forty-three 
years, and was esteemed as an upright man, a loyal citizen, and a 
helpful and considerate neighbor. Generous in his support of the 
church, in which he was a pewholder, a constant attendant at its 
services, he yet failed — in the stern and unbending judgment of the 
minister — in one important respect: he was not ‘a professor.’ Says 


our diarist: 


Monday, Aug. 25: Most unusually warm — hardly ever known to be more 
so... At 12 0’clock walked with Mr. Southworth to the house of mourning 
where a prayer was offered up by Mr. D. A. Clark. Mr. A. Bingham was 
also present — likewise all the children & most if not all the grandchildren. 
The concourse of people attending was very great — marched in procession 
with my good friend H. Dimmick. The corpse was carried by hand from 
near Brooks to the meeting house where it was deposited as usual. A sermon 
was preached by D. A. Clark from Romans 13th. C. verse 12th. — The 
discourse was a pretty powerful one, but not calculated to suit everyone — 
made some rather harsh remarks on the religious principles of the deceased 
&c. When the exercises were closed the corpse was conveyed across the old 
Burying Ground to the new, lately purchased of F. Blackmer, by the Town 


36 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


and with all due respect laid in the first grave open there — on the left of 
the entrance. Visited the P. Office — saw the account of Capt. N’s death 
which was incorrect — on my suggestion it was corrected. 


Greatly to the surprise of most of his friends and neighbors, Captain 
Norton was quite a poor man at the time of his death. Fond of good 
living, boundless in hospitality, extravagant in his expenditures upon 
his children according to the standards of his day, he had lived beyond 
his means and his affairs were found to be involved. He died intestate, 
leaving an estate having a gross value of four thousand dollars, accord- 
ing to a report made to the Commissioners of Probate, May 2, 1829. 
The heirs agreed that this gross estate should remain undivided in the 
sole possession of Captain Norton’s widow, Luman proudly under- 
taking personal responsibility for all his father’s debts. So after his 
death, as during his lifetime, no debt of honest old ‘Potter Norton’ 
went unpaid. The father’s honor was safe in the son’s keeping. 


Luman Norton 
Next among those who worked at the original pottery to claim our 
attention is Luman Norton, known to his neighbors and friends at an 
early date as ‘Major Norton’ and to those of a later period of his life 
as ‘Judge Norton.’ To record the simple fact that he was universally 
held to be in all respects the equal of his father, and worthy of him, is 
to accord to his name and memory a tribute of which his descendants 
may justly be proud. He was born at Williamstown, Massachusetts, 
February 9, 1785. Brought to Bennington as an infant less than six 
months old, he was regarded as a native of the town in which all his 

life was spent, and so he regarded himself. 
While Captain John Norton was himself a man of far more educa- 


tion than the average, and was keenly interested in giving his children 


THE EARLY POTTERS 37 


every possible educational facility and advantage,* the circumstances 
of time and place conspired narrowly to limit the schooling of his 
oldest son. As soon as the lad was old enough to help on the farm, his 
services were too important, and too urgently needed, to be readily 
dispensed with. When the pottery was started by his father, in 1793, 
young Luman was nearing the age at which he could be very useful, 
both on the farm and in and around the pottery. In 1796, when Luman 
was eleven, Captain Norton brought to Bennington from his old home 
in Goshen, Connecticut, a young nephew of his, named Norman 
Judd, just past fourteen years of age, to be an apprentice in the 
pottery. Living in the family with Luman and his brother John and 
their younger brothers and sisters, the young apprentice and the 
oldest of his cousins naturally became close companions. It was quite 
natural, therefore, that Luman should also become a potter. 

As early as 1765, according to Bancroft, there were in Bennington 
‘three several public schools.’ | In 1780 the first incorporated academy 
in the State was incorporated — Clio Hall. The fine old church in the 
village now known as Old Bennington stands upon ground which 
includes the site of this famous academy, which, from about 1781 
until 1803, when it was destroyed by fire, held a high place among the 
educational institutions of New England. Whether or not Luman 
Norton ever attended Clio Hall as an enrolled scholar is uncertain. 
He was eighteen years of age at the time of the destruction of that 
institution, and it is probable that he attended it for at least some 
portions of a year or two. The greater part of such formal education 
as he received was, however, in the district school. It must be re- 
membered in this connection that the district schools were not in 


* It is worthy of note that his oldest daughter, Clarissa, born 1789, was educated at Mid- 
dlebury College — the first college-trained woman in the town. 
+ Bancroft, quoted by Jennings: Memorials of a Century, p. 337- 


38 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


session during the months when everything on the farm called for the 
hands of strong boys and girls. They were conducted during the long 
winter months, when the boys and girls could best be spared. 

With his cousin, Norman L. Judd, and those of his brothers and 
sisters who were old enough to go, young Luman attended the district 
school, in the support and supervision of which his father was most 
active. From numerous references in the Harwood diaries to con- 
versations with Luman Norton, Judd, and others, we know that, as 
early as from 1794 to 1798, the two cousins had for schoolmaster one 
N. Brush, Jr. Long afterward, when he was a substantial citizen and 
a grandfather, Judge Luman Norton would frequently talk of his old 
schoolmasters, and would display with pride his old ‘cyphering books,’ 
which he had carefully saved. It seems certain that he was a fairly 
steady attendant at the village schools from 1794 to 1804. One of his 
schoolmasters was H. A. Fay, a man of rare character and understand- 
ing. 

Beyond the rudimentary education so acquired, Luman Norton was 
self-taught. In his maturity he enjoyed considerable local reputation 
as a man of exceptional erudition and culture, and there is abundant 
evidence to show that this reputation was not undeserved. Through- 
out his life he was a constant reader, and he read with discrimination 
and to good purpose. A list of the books and papers recorded as hav- 
ing been read and discussed by him would astonish the average busi- 
ness man of to-day. He read the New York Spectator with great 
regularity, and it was his custom to discuss the principal articles in that 
paper with his friends and associates. He was keenly interested in 
politics and took great pains to inform himself concerning inter- 
national affairs. Neighbors sought his opinion as that of a man who 
knew far more than they, and it was his habit to read aloud, to such as 


—— eo i 


THE EARLY POTTERS 39 


cared to listen, the foreign news, important political speeches delivered 
in Congress and elsewhere, state papers and similar documents. 
Scattered through the Harwood diaries during a period of thirty 
years are numerous entries of which the following are fair examples: 


... visited L. N. — found him engaged with the 2d. Vol. of State Papers, 
U.S. — Fuly 11, 1824. 


... having been to church, I walked with him (Mr. Southworth) across 
lots to within a short distance of Maj. L. Norton’s where I spent the evening 
—S. Loomis, Newt. Bates & others being present. Talked of roads — 
Looked at the Road Act for 1827 — heard my friend read Cooper’s Hist. of 
America. — February 24, 1828. 


... walked direct for Major Luman’s shop. .. The Major held me some- 
time in social chat concerning Randolph’s speeches in 1826 — his mission to 
Russia — Correspondence of Jackson & Calhoun, &c &c. — February 28, 
1831. 


In the evening visited Major L. Norton’s.... Made inquiry of the 
Major as to foreign news and our Cabinet — Poles wonderfully successful 
— Old Cabinet friends coming out against one another, &c &c. — May 27, 
1831. 


Called at Maj. L. Nort’s.... Major read some paragraphs of Pres. 
Proclamation of which he was a great admirer — that is, read it to me. His 
daugh. Louisa and others were engaged on bedquilts. — December 18, 1832. 


... Evening accomp* by cous. G. visited major Luman Norton whose 
children were all at home. He immediately employed me in reading the very 
fine Remarks of Mr. Webster on introducing the Resolutions of the late 
Boston Meeting on the alarming state of Public Affrs. in the Senate of the 
U. S. — His suggestions were more to the point than anything I have seen 
during the past session. — Also read another Letter from Jack Downing * 
in which he sustained himself nobly. — February 1, 1834. 


He read English and French history and biography with keen 


* Pseudonym of a political writer, contributor to the New York Spectator. 


40 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


interest and was never happier than when he could gather his children 
and a friend or two together and read aloud from Hume and similar 
writers, always discussing what was read. The whole of Hume’s 
History was covered in this manner. In the same way he set about 
going through the whole of the historical and biographical mate- 
rial in Reel’s Cyclopedia, taking the articles alphabetically! His 
favorite authors were Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope — 
Homer above all. He had an astonishing memory for poetry, and to 
his children and grandchildren he would recite long passages from the 
Ilhad and the Odyssey, from various plays by Shakespeare, from 
Milton’s Paradise Lost, and from Pope’s Essay on Man. Pope’s 
translation of Homer was his daily companion. He carried it in his 
pocket and frequently read it as he walked across the fields or through 
the streets of the village. 

It is evident from this list of his favorite authors that he had a 
liking for the ‘grand manner’ in literature, as have most people who 
are much given to reading aloud. 

Evidently there was a romantic streak in Luman’s character, for it 
is said that he enjoyed thunder-storms immensely. It fascinated him 
to listen to the crashing of the thunder among the hills and to watch 
the lightning. He never lost an opportunity to watch an electrical 
storm, and his children used to tell how he would gather them together 
on the porch, whenever there was such a storm, and, mid the crashing 
of thunder and the flashing of lightning, read to them from Homer! 

He found time, likewise, for reading upon subjects related to his 
craft — chemistry, making glass, porcelain manufacture, and so 
forth * — and, in his conversations with his friend and neighbor, 
Governor Isaac Tichenor, he manifested as keen an interest in ‘the 


* Harwood Diary, August 4, 1833. 


— - 


THE EARLY POTTERS 41 


Parian Marbles brought to England in 1814,’ * as in crops, politics, 
‘McAdam roads,’ books, or whist. 

When he was twenty-three years old, in 1808, Luman Norton 
married Lydia Loomis, by whom he had three children — Julius, born 
1809; Louisa, born 1811; and Laura, born 1815. His family life was as 
happy and attractive as that of his father. Like the father, the son 
loved to be surrounded with young people and to share their pleasures 
and amusements. His children and their friends made the house merry 
with music and dancing. While Luman Norton was never such an 
accomplished flautist as his son Julius later became, he was a tolerably 
good performer upon flute and fife and was extremely fond of playing. 
At the pottery the intervals of waiting upon the kiln were often be- 
guiled with the music of flute and fife and fiddle and snatches of song. 
The following notes by Hiram Harwood are quite typical: 


In the evening visited Major L. Norton’s — Burning stoneware — L. 
himself throwing in wood. Bates, O. W. Daniels, N. J. Norton and Leger 
Hoyt present, fiddle, flute and fife in the bargain. Something was done in 
music. — May 27, 1831. 


I visited the house & shop of Maj. Luman Norton — selected a large 6 G. 
pot which we wanted to use in potting cheese — would not bring it home on 
account of being there on foot. Heard Julius play the flute and saw his new 
collection of Music in which there were a great many very fine pieces. — 


Fune g, 1831. 


Went to Maj. L’s shop — tried to sell beef to Bates & Morton effected no 
bargain — heard Julius N. perform several pieces on the flute — tried a few 
pieces myself — Came out & pursued course directly for home. — Dec. 22, 
1541. 


Although he was never a scholar in the narrow sense of that word, 
Luman Norton was an exceedingly well-read man. He was educated, 


* Idem, July 23, 1830. 


42 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


in the largest and best sense of that much-misused term. Above all, he 
was a man of sterling character and notable refinement. The polished 
manners, the Old-World courtliness and dignified urbanity of ‘Judge 
Luman’ became a by-word in the town, and then a local tradition. 
Old Benningtonians to-day recall the stories told by their parents of 
the quaint charm of his ceremonial politeness. During many years he 
was known by his military title, by virtue of his commission as Major 
in what was locally known as ‘Colonel Robinson’s Regiment,’ a militia 
company, the First Regiment, Second Brigade. He resigned his com- 
mission in 1821. Later he was made one of the Assistant Judges of 
Bennington County, and thenceforth unto the day of his death he bore 
the title of ‘Judge.’ 

In some manner a legend grew up in the community where he lived 
and died concerning ‘Judge Luman’—a legend which has been 
accepted as true, even by some of the Norton family. It is to the effect 
that he was a man almost wholly lacking in practical wisdom, espe- 
cially in business matters; a dreamer, a visionary, charming but pos- 
sessing little of the stern common sense essential to a successful 
business man. I venture to assert that this is a wholly mistaken and 
misleading view of Luman Norton. It does not accord at all with the 
evidence in my possession; it certainly was not the judgment of 
those who did business with the man and whose opportunities for 
judging him were best and most numerous. 

Yet it is easy to account for the legend: from 1835 onward Luman 
progressively shifted the management of the business to his son 
Julius. Years before his retirement from the firm, in 1840, he had 
become little more than a figurehead, having transferred the responsi- 
bility to Julius. It is not surprising, therefore, that employees who 
came into the pottery after 1838 or thereabouts should have gained the 





THE EARLY POTTERS 43 


impression that ‘Judge Luman’ was of no consequence so far as the 
business was concerned. From the time of his business retirement 
to his death, in 1853, he was not actively engaged in business; so he 
came to be known in the community as a man of books, an elderly 
gentleman of polished manners and courtly deportment, whose library 
and literary tastes were much talked of. The successful and enter- 
prising business man of an earlier day was not remembered. Finally, 
his son Julius was a much more aggressive money-maker than he, 
himself, had ever been. Under the younger man’s energetic manage- 
ment the business grew rapidly. Julius became a much richer man 
than his father had been, or had cared to be, perhaps, and people 
naturally spoke of him as the more ‘successful’ of the two. 

There is, nevertheless, abundant evidence that an earlier generation 
held Luman Norton in high respect as a shrewd and capable man of 
business. There was no one in the village whose advice was more 
generally sought. He was one of the directors of the local bank. 
Year after year he was elected as one of the ‘Listers’ of the town; and 
all who are familiar with our New England form of local government 
will realize that, in the old days, men believed to be good judges of 
property values were usually chosen for this post. Certainly, it is most 
unlikely that a man commonly reputed to be a mere visionary and 
dreamer would be chosen by his fellow citizens to be a ‘Lister.’ 
Luman Norton was elected to the State Legislature in 1853. In the 
Harwood diaries there are records of many business deals in which he 
figured. It is possible to trace his negotiations for the purchase of real 
estate and other property, and the record shows him to have been as 
canny as any of the neighbors with whom he dealt. He was Select- 
man and School Trustee and Treasurer of the School Trustees — 
offices not high, truly, but indicating a local repute for being level- 
headed and trustworthy. 


44 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


More directly to the point at issue, perhaps, is a letter written by 
Hiram Harwood to his friend N. L. Judd in January, 1814, of which a 
synopsis is given in the diary. Harwood wrote to Judd ‘of his friend 
Luman Norton’s having purchased the Fisk Farm, which added to 
his other possessions & his habits of industry appeared to me to be a 
foundation on which he intended rearing a vast superstructure.’ 

Finally, there is the significant fact that, in the critical period of 
1833-1834, when so many business men in Bennington and elsewhere 
failed, Luman Norton was one of those few who triumphantly 
weathered the storm, and, by his own account, was not seriously 
affected by it. 

Like his father before him, Luman was a Freemason, devoted to 
that craft; but a large part of his lifetime after attaining maturity 
coincided with the anti-masonic movement, which was especially 
virulent in Vermont, and I have no means of measuring the extent of 
his masonic activities. That he was one of those who kept the organi- 
zation alive, we know. Up to 1830 he was a faithful and active member 
of the congregation of the Church in the old village; later he became a 
communicant of Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church. All in all, Luman 
Norton was a singularly attractive and lovable character; he lived 
justly and righteously, and, when he died, left behind him a reputation 
fragrant with honorable memories. 

So much for the man and the citizen. Asa potter he was a craftsman 
of the old school. Within the limits of the business as it was conducted 
during his lifetime he thoroughly mastered every branch of his craft. 
No ornamental wares were made by the firm until after his retirement 
from the business. So far as is known, all the work was of the ‘thrown 
and turned’ kind; that is, the clay was thrown upon the wheel and 
worked into shape by the hands of the potter. What are known as 





THE EARLY POTTERS 45 


‘moulded and cast’ wares were not produced until later. Luman 
Norton was a potter in the old sense of the word; he worked at the 
wheel, shaping the lumps of clay into vessels for use. That he was a 
good potter and that he loved his work and took pride in it, we know. 
By his fellow craftsmen he was held in high esteem as a workman of 
more than ordinary skill. 


Norman L. Jupp 

Of the other potters who worked in the Norton Pottery prior to 
1830, the most significant and notable was Norman L. Judd, to whom 
reference has been made in the preceding pages. Sufficient has been 
said of the boyhood and apprenticeship of this early Vermont potter, 
and it is necessary only to touch briefly upon his subsequent career. 
As apprentice and journeyman he remained with his uncle, Captain 
Norton, for about ten years — 1796-1806. 

In the latter year he established a pottery at Burlington, Vermont, 
one of the first, if not the first, in that city. In 1809 his shop was 
burnt out, a common experience of our early potteries. It is probable, 
but not certain, that Judd never again started up in Burlington. 
When Hiram Harwood became a volunteer, in 1812, he was sent to 
Burlington for training. In a special journal recording his enlistment 


and his experience as a volunteer we find this entry concerning Judd: 


Thursday, Sept. 24, 1812: On the left as we go down to the wharf [Burling- 
ton, Vermont] stands a brick building in the under part of which Mr. Norman 
Judd from Bennington once carried on a pottery — now occupied by a 
baker in the service of the U. S. I stepped in and entered into conversation 
with the old baker respecting the cause of Mr. J’s leaving the place. He 
said he was universally respected — had more business than he could 
perform — did not owe so much but that he could soon have cleared out — 
and was steady and industrious. His — the baker’s — opinion was that it 
was owing to his wife and mother-in-law that he left the place. 


46 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Upon leaving Burlington, Judd established himself at Rome, New 
York, where he started a new pottery and made common red ware. 
At the end of 1814 he wrote in a letter to Hiram Harwood: 


Rome, OnerpA, 
State, N. Y., 28h Deer. 


We make Earthen Ware fast — have burned 8 kilns since the 8th. of last 
May — amtg to $1500 — Ware is here ready cash. It is now 8 o'clock at 
night, I have just done turning bowls — I rest across my mould bench while 
writing — no wonder if I do make wild shots. remember me to my uncle’s 
family. Tell John, if he labors for his saving, I want him to work with me — 
as he is some acquainted with this business, I can afford to pay him good 
wages. — I have been looking sometime for a line from Luman, but it does 
not come. 


In his new location Judd prospered until the spring of 1817, when 
fire, the dread enemy of the potter, once more overtook him. Again 
he was burned out, shop, tools, materials, ware, and everything else 
being completely destroyed. To the unfortunate Judd it seemed that 
the only course was to leave Rome and seek employment as a journey- 
man. The people of Rome, however, had come to appreciate the ad- 
vantages of having a pottery in their midst, and looked upon Judd’s 
proposed removal as a public calamity. A popular subscription was 
taken up, and the pottery, quickly rebuilt upon a larger scale, was soon 
in operation again turning out stoneware as well as red ware. Judd 
seems to have prospered after this. The pottery was still in existence 
and apparently flourishing in 1837. How much longer it lasted I do not 


know. 


RicHarD L. FENTON | 
Of the other workmen employed in the Nortons’ pottery prior to 
1833 only one needs to be more than mentioned. There are several 


reasons why special attention should be paid to the name of R. L. 


THE EARLY POTTERS 47 


Fenton. In the first place, it is important to remove, once and for all, 
the confusion of this man’s identity with that of his more famous 
brother, Christopher Webber Fenton, which has found its way into 
numerous books and articles upon the subject of the Bennington pot- 
teries. In the second place, just as we considered N. L. Judd worthy 
of special consideration because he left Bennington and became con- 
nected with the industry elsewhere in Vermont, so R. L. Fenton merits 
attention because of his connection with the industry in another Ver- 
mont town — Dorset. Finally, he was apparently connected with the 
original Norton Pottery for a longer period than most of those of 
whom we have any record. 

Let us begin with the first of the above-stated reasons: As an ex- 
ample of the confusion of identity referred to, we may quote Pitkin, 
who tells us that 

No record has been found, showing the date when Mr. Fenton * went to 
Bennington. Had he done so as soon as he finished his apprenticement in 
Dorset, he might have worked for Capt. John Norton one year. At the end 
of which time, Captain John Norton died, in 1828. From the dates and ages 
given in the Norton Family Records, it is safe to assume that Mr. Fenton 
first associated himself with Mr. Luman Norton, Capt. John Norton’s 
oldest son, succeeding Captain John Norton in the business.f 

There is no evidence whatsoever upon which to base the suggestion 
that Christopher Webber Fenton may have worked for Captain John 
Norton; neither is there, in any known record of the Norton family, 
evidence that he ‘first associated himself with Mr. Luman Norton,’ 
nor anything else which gives us the right to assume anything of the 
sort. On the contrary, the Norton family records — in so far as they 
bear upon the matter at all — tend to show that Christopher Webber 
Fenton was never so associated with Luman Norton. 


* Christopher Webber Fenton is here referred to. { Pitkin, op. cit., pp. 19-20. 


48 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


As already noted, in his account of the death of Captain John 
Norton, Hiram Harwood calls attention to the fact that, among those 
who helped in ‘laying out the corpse,’ was a Mr. Fenton. This was 
not Christopher Webber Fenton, however, but an older brother of his, 
Richard L. Fenton, a potter at that time, and for some time afterward, 
in the employ of Luman Norton. 

Richard L. Fenton was born in 1797. At the date of Captain Nor- 
ton’s death, therefore, he was thirty-one years old. He was then 
living in one of several farmhouses owned by Major Luman Norton, 
and was employed part of the time in caring for the farm and the rest 
of the time as a journeyman potter. The farmhouse which he occupied 
was nearer to Captain Norton’s than was that of Major Luman, his 
employer, and it is perfectly natural that he should have been called 
upon for assistance. In proof that we are not mistaken in our identi- 
fication of this Fenton may be cited an advertisement published in the 
Vermont Gazette, September 16, 1828, and a series of entries from the 


diaries of Hiram Harwood. The advertisement reads: 


NOTICE 


Broke into the enclosure of the subscriber on or about 
the 15th of August last a two year old Bull of a deep red 
color. The owner is desired to prove property, pay charges, 
and take him away. 

Ricuarp L. Fenton 


Bennington, Sept. 13, 1828. 





The diary entries, which are set down in their chronological order, 
will complete the chain of evidence: 


1828. Friday, August 22d:...P. M. rec’d a visit from neighbor Fenton 
and his brother-in-law Allen from Dorset the latter was calculating to wait 





THE EARLY POTTERS 49 


upon his sister, the late Teacher of our school, home — requested pay for her 
services — I had to ask some indulgence on this affair having made use of 
the public money left in my care — agreed to do the best I could... . Went 
to Fenton’s & paid Miss Allen $5.00 towards school bill, leaving due of the 
public money $8.15. The whole of her demand amt’d to $14.75 — $1.60 to 
be collected of the District. 


1828. Tuesday, Sept. 23d:...P. M. went to maj. Luman Norton’s — 
Paid to Mr. Fenton to apply on debt due to Miss B. Allen for teaching school 
$8.13, public money — on my private or common school bill, 18 cts — this 
was paid by guess — next day made up the deficiency — 2 cts on each bill. 
Came up home with friend L. Norton and R. Carpenter who were bound to 
the Bk. 


1830. Monday, Mar. 22d:...called on Mr. R. L. Fenton — rec’d but 
slight information about cows — had shoats to sell — was expecting teams 
to remove his family and effects to Dorset — had got tired of taking farms. 
Was himself going to remain in Maj. Luman’s service. A Mr. Evans was 
coming into Norton’s house after his departure. 


1830. Saturday, May 8th:...Rec’d a note against Levi for his school 
rate including that of Mr. Cummings — due one day from date — to A. 
McKee or order — $4.17. In crossing out the names of Jewett & C. on the 
Bill committed a mistake & crossed out those of Fenton and I. Searls who 
had neither paid nor given notes which circumstance is entered on the back 
of the School Bill, that it may appear fairly — free from any suspicious 
trick. 


1830. Tuesday, Sept. 14:... Made rather a long stop at Maj. L. Nort’s 
conversed on European Politicks — borrowed two Nos. of N. Y. Spect — 
Spoke with young Fenton * to let him know that I had a small demand — 
35cts. school tax — against his brother * of Dorset on which I had advanced 
the pay — S’d he would inform him of it. 


1831. Saturday, April 16: Prepared and forwarded line to Asa Hill request- 
ing payment of 36 cts. school rate. Had a similar communication intended 
for R. L. Fenton, Dorset, but afterwards saw him and asked favor of pay- 
ment — only 35 cents paid last June to W. H. McKee for schooling — said 
he could not pay it now — referred me to Maj. L. Norton, with whom he 


* Italics mine. — J. S. 


50 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


said he had dealing. I put but slight dependence on this resource. Never 
mind, it is but small — let it go. 


1831. Monday, December 12:... Rec'd visit in the eve’g from E. Fay Jun 
who paid debt to Orr W. Daniels of $1.50 and to due me on Wight’s School 
Bill 1/o —I should pay s’d money over to the Dist. were it not for money 
which I advanced on McKee’s bill for N. L.* Fenton — 35 cents for which 
I could never get a cent. 


It is quite clear from the foregoing that the Fenton who was asso- 
ciated with Major Luman Norton from 1828 to 1831, as tenant and 
journeyman potter, was Richard L. Fenton, and not his brother who 
later on became the Major’s son-in-law. The latter is the ‘young 
Fenton’ referred to under date of September 14, 1830, when he was 
told of his brother’s debt. So far as is known, Christopher Webber 
Fenton never worked for Luman Norton, either before or after he 
married the Major’s oldest daughter, Louisa, in 1832. 

In the land records of the town of Dorset, in the Town Clerk’s 
Office, there is a deed from Jonathan Fenton to Richard L. Fenton, 
dated December 9, 1826, which is doubly interesting in that it not only 
enables us definitely to locate the site of the Fenton Pottery in East 
Dorset, where Christopher Webber Fenton is supposed to have learned 
his trade, but also establishes once and for all the identity of the 
makers of the old jugs and jars that are occasionally found, marked 
J. Fenton, East Dorset, Vt. and R. L. Fenton, East Dorset, Vt., respec- 
tively. The deed sets forth that Jonathan Fenton grants to R. L. 
Fenton certain land: 

Beginning at a stake and stones eight rods North from the highway 
leading to Mt. Tabor & bounded on purkin brook & from said stake & stones 


ten rods west to a stone fence thence four rods North to a stake and stones & 
from thence East ten rods to purkin brook & from thence four rods down 


* An obvious error — R. L. was intended. 





THE EARLY POTTERS 51 


purkin brook to the first mentioned bound containing one half acre more or 
less. It is further to be understood that the said Richard L. is entitled to one 
half of a water privilege on said purkin brook together with one half of a 
potters Factory being on said purkin brook. 


Whether this pottery had been abandoned by 1828, when we find 
Richard L. Fenton working in Bennington, I do not know. Prolonged 
research has failed to uncover any information upon this point. Unless 
the pottery at East Dorset had been given up by that time, it is hard 
to understand why Richard L. Fenton, himself part owner of a pottery, 
should have been living with his family at Bennington, as a tenant of 
one of Luman Norton’s farms, and working for the latter as a journey- 
man potter. Of course, there are other possible explanations: He may 
have been held in Bennington by a lease of some sort which he had 
entered into before he acquired a half-interest in his father’s pottery; 
or he may have found it necessary, or profitable, to work at Benning- 
ton for a year or two in order to earn money for additional capital. 
It is not at all unlikely that his brother, Christopher Webber, was help- 
ing his father and that the little pottery could not support another 
potter. Whatever the reason may have been, the record speaks for 
itself. Richard did not live long after his return to Dorset, for a tomb- 
stone in the old cemetery on the highway leading to East Dorset 
records the fact that he died July 25, 1834, aged thirty-six years. 


Joun anpD Norman Norton 
Two of Luman Norton’s brothers worked, more or less, at the old 
first pottery in Captain Norton’s time — John, two years younger 
than Luman, and Norman, Captain Norton’s youngest child, born 
in 1806. The former appears never to have learned the trade with 
anything like thoroughness, and to have been employed more or less 


as a handy man about the pottery. As already noted, when the firm 


52 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


of John Norton & Sons was dissolved, in 1823, he received a share in 
the pottery. But he did not care for the business, and the partnership 
of the two brothers was dissolved in 1827. John became a storekeeper 
in the lower village, East Bennington, as it was called. He was actively 
interested in politics and was twice a member of the State Legislature 
— in 1829 and 1834. Norman, the youngest brother, was apprenticed 
to his father and his oldest brother, and became a turner — that is, he 
worked at the lathe, finishing off the ware before glazing. It is from 
one of the references to his work in the pottery by Hiram Harwood 
that we learn that they made pails with ‘button’ ears to which were 
attached stout wire ‘bail’ handles, quite in the modern fashion. 
Norman did not care for the pottery business and left it to assist his 
father in the management of the distillery. 


EARLY EMPLOYEES 

Of the other workmen employed at the old pottery from 1793 to 
1833 the names of a few are known to us. Among them it is interesting 
to note the names of some whose sons and grandsons worked in the 
Norton Pottery almost to the end. The earliest of these potters of 
whom we have any record is Abel Wadsworth, already referred to, who 
was probably the first journeyman potter employed by Captain 
Norton. J. W. Winship * was a potter — that is, he worked at the 
wheel — for a number of years, starting in the early eighteen-twenties. 
F. Wickwire ¢ also worked at the pottery in Captain Norton’s day, 
working sometimes at the wheel and sometimes at other branches of 
the trade. J. Morton was employed about the same period, probably 
doing such work as grinding clay and attending to the kilns. At the 


* There is some uncertainty as to the first name of Winship, and the initials may not be 
correct. —J. S. 
t Ldem. 





THE EARLY POTTERS 53 


time when Luman Norton and his brother John were still in partner- 
ship, S. Thayer * was a journeyman potter. Another employee at that 
time was Eben Gleason, though we do not know what branch of the 
work he pursued. - 

William Bates, of Pownal, worked at the pottery for many years, 
beginning when the business was conducted by Captain Norton and 
his sons, under the name of John Norton & Sons, and continuing until 
long after the removal of the pottery to the lower village — a period of 
sixty years or so. He seems to have been a general laborer or handy 
man in the old days, partly employed in farming and partly in the 
least skilled labor of the pottery. In the later period he used to set the 
kiln. J. Pitts Godfrey, clay grinder, Bliss Sibley, potter, and David 
Sibley, the nature of whose occupation is uncertain, were all employed 
in the pottery prior to 1833. Some of these names are almost as in- 
timately connected with the history of the industry in Bennington as 
the name Norton itself. 


ITINERANT PoTTERS 

Wherever the materials available have made it possible to study 
intensively the history of early English and American potteries, we 
encounter the itinerant workman, tramping from town to town and 
working only a few days in any one place. In this and some other in- 
dustries ‘tramp’ workmen used to fill an important place. No disgrace 
or discredit was attached to them. Frequently — indeed, perhaps 
more often than not — they were above the average in skill, possibly 
because their wandering habits made them more adaptable and 
brought them into contact with methods and processes unfamiliar to 
most men of their calling. They brought news from the outside, and 


* Idem. 


54. THE NORTON POTTERIES 


were generally welcomed on that account. The itinerant workman is 
almost invariably a gossip and a highly sociable fellow. It is probably 
to some such temporary sojourners at the Bennington pottery that 
Hiram Harwood refers in the following entry, dated November 22, 
1825: 

... drove till arrived at L. Nort’s — halted entered the shop and talked 
awhile with friends L. & John. — There was present a well-dressed good- 
looking young man — a journeyman potter who first informed us of the 
failure of the Eagle Bk, N. Haven — Middletown bk. & the Derby Bk &c. 

Finally, there are two entries which present another type of travel- 
ing workman — the man working his way to a given place where he 
expects to settle down, but making the journey by easy stages, stop- 
ping to work at potteries along the route, a few days at each place, 
and so earning the cost of transportation for himself and family. The 
entries are of added interest on account of the mention of a ‘gentleman 
Potter’ at Fairfax, Vermont. 


April 19, 1831: On Monday evening rec’d for boarder Jason Merrill — 
young married man nearly 25 years of age — potter by occupation — 
wanted to stay 5 days while he performed journey-work for Maj. L. Norton. 


April 23rd, 1831: Mr. J. merrills took leave after paying $1.25 ‘board bill’ 
— Calculated on going with his wife & child to Fairfax, Vt. to work for a 
gentleman potter of that place. 





Z ie! ie 


. 


III 
EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 
Tue New Pottery oF 1833 

ANY of those who have written about the Bennington 

potteries have demonstrated an incapacity for historical 

research that is almost incredible. Even those writers 
who have made the most ambitious attempts to write the history of 
these potteries not only have failed to establish the most simple facts, 
but have given wide currency to errors which might well have been 
avoided. Some facts have been far from easy to obtain, it is true; but 
in this respect the history of the Bennington potteries offers no more 
difficulties than history in general. 

Thus we find so widely accepted an authority as Barber actually 
confounding the modern brick building in the lower village, which was 
built in 1874, with the original wooden structure built by Captain 
John Norton, in 1793.* Another widely accepted authority first gives 
erroneously the date of the removal of the Norton Pottery to the 
lower, or East, village as 1831,f then, a page or two farther on, inti- 
mates that the event occurred some time after 1839, which is equally 
erroneous. He adds that at the same time Christopher Webber Fenton 
entered into partnership with Judge Norton, { which is quite without 
any basis in fact. 

In the papers of that tireless local antiquarian, my veteran friend, 
the late Dr. H. A. Day, it is recorded that the pottery was removed 


* Barber: The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States, p. 165- 
; Pitkin, op. cit., p 17. 
{ Op. cit., pp. 18-19. 


56 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


to the lower village, at that time called East Bennington, in 1833, 


Judge Norton and his son Julius then being partners, and the firm 
name being L. Norton & Son.* The Bennington Banner, March 23, 
1874, says that the pottery was removed to the lower village by 
Norton & Son in 1833. Aldrich’s History of Bennington County says 
the removal to the lower village took place in 1833. That this date is 
correct there can be no sensible doubt. It is borne out by the testi- 
mony of the Harwood diaries for the years 1832-1834. Throughout 
the whole of 1832, as the diary for that year shows, the pottery stood 
in the upper village, on the site where it had been erected in 1823. At 
that time John Norton, the second son of Captain John, had estab- 
lished a shop in the lower village, where he was a resident. This shop 
was immediately adjacent to the site upon which the pottery was 
subsequently erected, the land and certain water rights and privileges 
being owned by the Nortons. In 1877, during a chancery suit over 
water rights, in which the members of the firm of E. & L. P. Norton 
were among the defendants, it was testified that the Norton privilege 
‘was first improved about 1830,’ and this has been held to indicate that 
the pottery must have been built there in 1830 or 1831.1 

No such inference may be drawn from the facts presented to the 
Court in this case. The statement made in 1877 that the Nortons 
owned the water privilege and improved it ‘about 1830’ may be fairly 
regarded as elastic enough to cover the year 1833. And, in any event, 
even if that were not the case, the ‘improvement’ of the privilege did 
not require the building of the pottery at that time. A water privilege 


* Papers in the Day Collection (Bennington Battle Monument and Historical Associa- 
tion), M. 117-18. 

{ Page 299. 

t See Brief for Defendants Valentine, Nortons and Putnam in the case of Enos Adams et als. 0. 
Olin Scott, Alonzo B. Valentine, E. €3 L. P. Norton, and Henry W. Putnam, Chas. N. Davenport 


and A. P. Lyman, Counsel. Printed at Brattleboro, Vermont, 1877. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 i 4 


‘might be ‘improved’ by making any sort of temporary use of the 
water, or provision for its use — a dam, for example. The members 
of the Norton family who, at or near the site, were carrying on a black- 
smith or wagon-repairing shop may well have improved the privilege, 
either for actual use or to establish their rights. Be that as it may, up 
to the end of 1832 the pottery had not been moved downtown. The 
entry made in his diary by Hiram Harwood on December 18, 1832, 
indicates that there had been no recent change. On February 5, 1833, 
he notes that alterations had been made in the arrangement of the 
shop, but it is clear that there had been no removal to the lower village: 

... 1 assisted at loading besides sawing wood with father & procuring N. 
Y. Spect. of Jan. 24, 28 at maj. Luman’s— where first noticed alteration of 
shop — the turning apartment now occupying the whole area of the building 


as it was previous to removal from the ground it occupied N. of his father’s 
house — David Sibley — the only workman present. 


In May, 1833, Judge Norton purchased a piece of property, then 
known as the ‘Chatfield property,’ a parcel of land that had been part 
of the original farm of Peter Harwood, deeded by the latter to his son 
Asa in 1796. In the course of negotiations for the purchase of this 
property, the Judge expressed grave uncertainty and doubt because 
his son Julius was seriously talking of going to Portland, Maine, and 
setting up in the pottery business for himself.* It is a fair presump- 
tion that it was at or about this time that the copartnership of father 
and son was effected, the latter agreeing to give up his plan of going 
into business on his own account at Portland, and to remain with his 
father, and being taken into partnership in return for this considera- 
tion. Child’s Bennington County Directory of 1880, highly esteemed as 
a reliable authority, says that Luman and Julius entered into partner- 


* Diary, March 29, 1833. 


58 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


ship and moved the business to the lower village, to the location later 
known as Pottery Street, in 1833.* By the latter part of the year the 
removal had taken place, for on December Io, 1833, Hiram Harwood 
wrote in his diary: 

... Strayed down to Maj. L. Norton’s new pottery — saw everything 
going on well inside. Spoke to Norton — saw young Sibley at the wheel — 


Found the majr piling wood near the N. W. corner of his kiln house — 
appeared very lively & Agreeable — conversed with him a short time. 


It was at this time, apparently, that clay from New Jersey was 
first used. The object of using this clay was twofold: the native clay 
when mixed with that from New Jersey was easier to work than when 
used by itself, and the stoneware produced from it was of a better 
quality. The wares made at this time are decidedly superior to those 
made earlier. It is probable, judging by casual remarks in some of his 
letters, that the advice of Norman Judd was responsible, in part if not 
altogether, for the decision to use the New Jersey clay. Judge Luman 
Norton had great respect for the opinion of his cousin upon all matters 
connected with the technical side of the business. 

Although the new pottery was in operation, or partial operation, at 
the end of 1833, it was not completed until the spring of 1834. The 
new building was of wood, and was a good deal larger than the old one. 
Whereas in the latter, as late as 1831, the total number of workmen 
employed was twelve, by the middle of 1835 twice that number of 
hands were employed. It does not appear, however, that there was any 
material extension of the range of articles manufactured. So far as can 
be learned from the records and specimens that are known to exist, the 
only change of importance was in the quality of the wares, not in their 
variety. There was, of course, a great increase in the quantity pro- 


* Child’s Bennington County Directory of 1880, p. 87. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 59 


duced. The pottery manufactured at this time was salt-glazed and 
marked L. Norton & Son, Bennington, Vt. Much of it was decorated 
with neat floral designs sometimes in cobalt blue and sometimes in raw 
umber. 

The new buildings were somewhat enlarged during the winter of 
1834-1835; and, on March 14th of the latter year, Hiram Harwood 
duly recorded that his old friend and neighbor, the Judge, left off 
watching the stoneware kiln long enough to show him over the works, 
‘which appeared very extensive as well as permanent & convenient.’ 
From this point onward the actual direction and superintendence of 
the factory appears to have been largely left to Julius. The father is 
rarely mentioned in connection with the actual operation of the pot- 
tery after 1835. He is generally referred to by Hiram Harwood as 
being in the ‘counting room’; as, for example, in the record of a visit 
made to the works in June, 1836. This confirms the family tradition 
that, from 1835 onward, Julius was the actual head of the business. 

In 1838 Judge Norton built the double house on Pleasant Street, 
a fine old brick mansion in which he spent the last twenty years of his 
life. He did not find it convenient to continue residing in the upper 
village, so far from the works. Moreover, the migration from the 
upper village to the lower was in full swing, and the latter community 
was fast becoming the real center of life in the town. The Judge was, 
above everything, a sociable man. He wanted to be near his friends, 
and, more especially, his children. To enjoy the company of these it 

was necessary that he move down to East Bennington: the much- 
derided and despised ‘Algiers’ was becoming highly respectable. 
Close to the pottery lived his brother John. When Julius married, 
early in 1837, the Judge felt keenly the separation from his family. 
Such a man as the Judge would. The last of the three children had 


60 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


now left the parental roof. Louisa, the elder of his two daughters and 
his second child, had married Christopher Webber Fenton — de- 
scribed, it is interesting to note, as a ‘merchant’ of Dorset — in 1832. 
Laura, the youngest of the three children, had married Albert Walker, 
a merchant of Manchester, Vermont, in 1836. Julius and his bride lived 
not far from the pottery, and so did Laura and her husband. 


CHRISTOPHER WEBBER FENTON’s ADVENT 

The Judge wanted his elder daughter to be settled near him in 
Bennington. For this wish there may well have been another reason, 
even more powerful than his longing for the constant association with 
all his family, namely, the desire to protect his daughter. All was not 
well with Fenton, and the Judge was anxious for the future of his child. 
So the fine double house on Pleasant Street was built in order that his 
daughter might be near him. Until his death, in 1858, Judge Norton 
and his wife lived in the western half of the house; while their daughter 
and her husband, Christopher Webber Fenton, occupied the eastern 
half. 

Leaving to another section of this book the task of describing the 
personality and work of Christopher Webber Fenton,” it is necessary 
here to take notice of another Bennington legend which has been in- 
corporated in numerous books and magazine articles and almost uni- 
versally accepted as true. We may take this legend as we find it in 
Pitkin’s account: 


In 1839 Judge Norton took his son-in-law Christopher Webber Fenton, of 
Dorset, Vermont, into business with him....In 1846, Mr. Fenton wished 
to go into a more decorative line of ware, and Judge Norton did not care to, 
but he offered no objections to the younger men making the venture, and in 
the north wing of the Norton Pottery, Mr. Fenton, Julius Norton, and 


* See Part II — The Fenton Potteries. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 61 


Henry Hall started the manufacture of Parian Ware.... They brought 
John Harrison from England to do their first modelling. .... Their partner- 
ship lasted but a few years.* 


So runs the legend. Now, as a matter of sober history, it is necessary 
to set forth that (a) Judge Norton never took his son-in-law into par- 
nership with him; (b) there never was such an arrangement between 
the Judge and the ‘younger men’ of the firm; (c) Judge Norton was out 
of the firm long before 1846; (d) Julius Norton was never associated 
with Henry Hall as a partner, at any time. The story of the young 
genius, Fenton, ambitious to go into the manufacture of ‘a more 
decorative line of ware,’ and the cautious and conservative old gentle- 
man declining to venture the experiment, but indulgently giving his 
son and his son-in-law permission to risk their own capital in a small 
way, and to let them use a little space for this enterprise makes excel- 
lent reading, no doubt; but it is pure fiction. The facts are more 
prosaic, doubtless, but facts alone concern the historian. 

It is quite possible that Fenton became ‘associated with the Norton 
Pottery’ as early as 1839, or even earlier; but, if so, it was as an em- 
ployee and not as a partner in the firm. At that time, Judge Luman 
Norton had practically retired from active participation in the man- 
agement of the business. He had already become the leisurely gentle- 
man so well and so affectionately remembered by old Benningtonians. 
In an article published in the State Banner, March 28, 1856, which 
Fenton either wrote or personally inspired, it is said that ‘Some twenty 
years ago Mr. Fenton engaged in the manufacture of Stone Ware in 
our village,’ and the context makes it clear that his connection with 
the Norton Pottery is referred to. The words ‘some twenty years ago’ 
would, if narrowly interpreted, place the date of Fenton’s first con- 


* Pitkin, op. cit., pp. 18-19, 20. { See p. 73. 


62 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


nection with the Norton Pottery earlier than 1839 — say in 1836 or 
1837. The reasons for believing that this connection did not begin 
until later are as follows: (1) Hiram Harwood kept his diary until Oc- 
tober 23, 1837. Although he notes various visits to his friend Judge 
Norton during the last two or three years, mentions the works and 
gives the names of those whom he saw there, and records numerous 
items of news and gossip relating to different members of the Norton 
family, he apparently * makes no mention of Fenton or of his being in 
any manner associated with the pottery. The fact that he knew Fen- 
ton makes this omission all the more significant. (2) The house on 
Pleasant Street was built for the purpose of bringing the daughter — 
Mrs. Fenton — to reside near her father. There is no record that the 
Fentons were living in Bennington prior to their occupation of this 
house. (3) The tradition in the family is that Fenton in some way 
became associated with the pottery ‘somewhere about 1840.’ 


Fire-Brick INTRODUCED 

In 1837 the manufacture of fire-bricks was undertaken as an ad- 
dition to the business. Just above the stoneware pottery a building 
for this new departure was erected. The faithful Hiram Harwood 
wrote in his diary for May 23, 1837, ‘Visited works of Judge L. Norton 
— Large low building in forwardness for drying newly invented fire- 
bricks — erected N. old works.’ We do not know a great deal about 
this branch of the business, except that it was carried on for a number 
of years and seems to have attained considerable importance by 1840. 
As will be seen later, it was flourishing when Julius Norton became 
sole proprietor on the retirement of his father. In 1841, for instance, he 


* The reader will note that I say ‘apparently’ — it is quite possible that in looking over 
some thousands of pages of writing I have missed some reference to Fenton. 





Ce te Oe ee ee ee ee, ey ee 


gl 2 oy ay 


EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 63 


was advertising ‘Patented Firebrick (The best in the world) at $50. 
per thousand.’ The brick-making plant was operated until some time 
after the pottery was burned down, in 1845; and it is said that the 
brick used in the kilns of the new pottery was made there. From the 
First Annual Report on the Geology of Vermont, 1845, by C. B. Adams, 
we obtain some definite information concerning this ‘Patented Fire- 


brick.’ This authoritative account says: 


Bennington. — Half a mile northeast of the village is a deposit of excellent 
kaolin, which supplies the manufactory of Norton & Fenton in the village... 

For fire-bricks, the kaolin is made into paste with water, from which bricks 
are formed and burnt. These bricks, retaining the whiteness of the kaolin, 
and becoming very hard, are called ‘clay bricks.” They are next broken up 
by a mill and sifted, so as to be of the coarseness of fine gravel. This is 
mixed with unburnt kaolin and arenaceous quartz, pressed in molds of the 
required form and size and burnt in the same manner as before. These fire- 
bricks are very white and hard, and when fractured shew their composition 
of broken clay-brick and kaolin.* 


In my collection there is a large fire-brick which quite conforms to 
the foregoing description. It is impressed with the mark Fenton’s 
NO. 1, Bennington, Vt. It would appear, however, to belong to a 
somewhat later date — about 1850. Upon what was known as the 
‘A. P. Lyman Privilege,’ where Lyman and others had conducted a 
wadding mill, the manufacture of patent fire-brick was carried on. 
Aldrich’s History of Bennington County, says that this was ‘about 
1853, { but in the State Banner, December 14, 1850, there is a letter 
which refers to the manufacture of ‘ patent fire-brick’ at Bennington. 
This is almost certainly the same works. W. G. Leake, one of the 
old potters, long ago told the present writer that he remembered the 


* First Annual Report on the Geology of Vermont, 1845, p. 52. 
t Aldrich, op. cit., p. 331. 


64. THE NORTON POTTERIES 


manufacture of the patent fire-brick at the time of the United States 
Pottery, as late as 1855-1856. 

Although no document establishing the exact date of Judge Luman 
Norton’s withdrawal from the business has been discovered, it is not 
difficult to determine the approximate date with reasonable certainty. 
At the beginning of 1841, Julius Norton first began to advertise the 
business under his own name. Prior to that time the name of L. 
Norton & Son was used. We are fairly safe, therefore, in saying that 
the Judge withdrew at the end of 1840. The State Banner, in its issue 
of February 27, 1841, published this advertisement: 


BENNINGTON STONE WARE FACTORY 


Julius Norton Manufactures and keeps constantly for sale 
at his factory in Bennington East Village, Vt., a large assort- 
ment of STONE WARE, consisting of Butter, Cake, Pickle, 
Preserve and Oyster Pots, Jugs, Churns, Beer & Blacking 
Bottles, Jars, Plain and Fancy Pitchers, Ink Stands, Earthen 


Milkpans, Stove Tubes, Kegs, Mugs, Flower Pots, &c. &c. 
Also Patented Firebrick (The best in the world) at $50. per 
thousand. 
Orders from Merchants faithfully executed and ware for- 
warded on the shortest notice. 


Bennington, E. Village, Feb. 27, 1841. 





A PARTNERSHIP AND A FIRE 
It will be observed that there is no mention of Christopher Webber 
Fenton as partner at this time. Julius Norton speaks as sole pro- 
prietor. In the State Banner, April 26, 1842, and the Vermont Gazette, 
May 3, 1842, are to be found advertisements which seem to prove that 
Fenton could not have been a partner at that time. In these advertise- 
ments notice is given that Christopher W. Fenton, of Bennington, 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 65 


described as a ‘laborer,’ has petitioned for the benefit of the Bankrupt 
Act, asking to be declared a bankrupt at the hearing to be held at 
Windsor, May 24, 1842. Thus Fenton’s entrance into the firm as a 
partner must have been at some later date. That he was already 
employed at the pottery is probable. 

On Sunday morning, June 6, 1845, the pottery was burned to the 
ground. The cause of the fire was the usual one which took such a 
heavy toll from potteries at that period. To hold the kilns in place, 
and to prevent their being burst by expansion when in operation, a 
framework of heavy timbers was built around each kiln. So con- 
structed as to allow for the necessary and inevitable expansion due to 
the great heat, these frames were designed to take the strain thus im- 
posed upon the brick walls of the kilns and to provide the necessary 
resistance. The charring of the timbers in immediate contact with the 
sides of the kilns was virtually inevitable and was a commonplace 
occurrence to which no attention was paid. The manner in which the 
timbers were wedged against the hot brickwork, while it permitted a 
slow charring process, yet, because of the total absence of draught 
channels between timbers and brickwork, precluded flame. As a 
practical matter, therefore, little alarm was ever caused by the slow 
smouldering of the timbers next the brickwork. There was, however, 
always the danger that a strong wind might fan the smouldering fire 
into flame at some point of the structure; and, for that reason, it was 
the general practice for kilns to be watched at night while the firing 
operation was going on. Despite this precaution, however, destructive 
fires were of frequent occurrence. The value of the annual production 
of the pottery and fire-brick manufacture at this time was about 
$20,000. 

At the time of the fire, Christopher W. Fenton was in partnership 


66 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


with Julius Norton, the firm name being Norton & Fenton. I have 
not been able to discover any documentary evidence which would 
definitely fix the exact date at which this partnership began; but, after 
a most exhaustive study of all the available data, including every 
scrap of information concerning Fenton that could be found, I am led 
to the conclusion that the event took place not earlier than July, 1844, 
or not later than January, 1845. As already noted, it is probable that 
Fenton had been employed by his brother-in-law at the pottery for 
some time. Having regard to the fact that there appears to have been 
no publication of the firm name before 1845, and to the further fact 
that all references to the pottery in the local newspapers between 1841 
and 1845 refer to it as Julius Norton’s, we are justified in settling upon 
the dates given as marking with approximate correctness the beginning 
of the partnership. When we take into account Fenton’s bankruptcy, 
already referred to, and the time required for the settlement of his 
affairs and for his discharge from bankruptcy, this conclusion is forti- 
fied. That the partnership was in effect at the time of the fire is proved 
by a signed advertisement published in the Vermont Gazette, June 10, 


1845: 


A CARD 


Messrs. Norton & Fenton return their most grateful thanks 
to their neighbors and friends for their prompt and active 
exertions to preserve their property from destruction by fire, on 
Sunday morning last. This acknowledgement is not only due 


to the inhabitants and Fire Company of this village and espe- 
cially to the Fire Company of that village, which was on the 
ground with great promptness and whose exertions were extra- 
ordinary and efficient. 


Fune 9. 








EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 67 


Jutius Norton 

Julius Norton was born in the old village, September 23, 1809. At 
that time and for some years thereafter, his parents lived in part of the 
house owned and occupied by Captain John Norton. The latter with 
his wife and family lived in the upper part of the house, Luman, his 
wife, and their child occupying the lower part until 1813 or 1814. 
Prior to that time the references to the Nortons in the Harwood diaries 
frequently mention the joint occupancy of the Norton house as above 
described. 

Asa lad Julius attended the ordinary district school, thence graduat- 
ing into the Bennington Academy, where he completed his education. 
The Academy was a notable institution in those days and enjoyed 
a high reputation, ranking among the best schools of New England. 
Such records of the Academy as have been preserved do not indicate 
that Julius Norton was in any way distinguished. His name is to be 
found neither among those who shone on special occasions, as at the 
annual ‘exhibitions,’ nor among those who attracted attention by less 
admirable qualities. By all accounts he was rather a shy youth, quiet 
and reserved in his manner, with few intimate associates. In the family 
circle and among the neighbors and friends of the family, his passion 
for music occasioned much comment. Like his father and his grand- 
father before him, he was extremely fond of the flute. From his father 
he received his first instruction in playing that instrument, but soon 
surpassed his instructor in skill. To the end of his life he was devoted 
to the flute and was generally esteemed the most expert flautist in the 
county. He was an accomplished violinist and was fairly proficient at 
the piano. By members of the Norton family in general he is regarded 
as the most artistic of all the Nortons. 

He first married Maria Spooner, a school teacher, in 1836. She was a 


68 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


lineal descendant of William C. Spooner, one of the signers of the De- 
claration of Independence. She died May 22, 1837, two months after 
the birth of her only child — Luman Preston Norton. In 1842, five 
years after the death of his first wife, Julius Norton married Sophia B. 
Olin. Of this union two daughters were born — Eliza, born in 1843, 
and Alice, born in 1848. 

Julius Norton learned his trade as a potter in the old pottery on the 
Pownal Road, under the direction of his father. He loved his work and 
took a keen pride in it, and by his fellow craftsmen was regarded as 
an exceptionally good potter. Though universally respected, and 
honored as an upright man and a good citizen, he never endeared 
himself to the community as did his father. There was about him a 
cold and austere reserve, possibly a manifestation of shyness, which 
few could penetrate. He had little or none of the hearty geniality 
which characterized his father. When old potters speak of him they 
dwell most upon his quiet demeanor and his unfailing sense of justice 
and fair-mindedness. Those who came into intimate relation with him 
in his family circle speak most of his aloofness and his absorption in 
his music. As a business man he was keen, energetic, resourceful, and 
highly successful. Possessing the artistic temperament in greater 
measure than any other member of his family, he is remembered as 
the one ‘money-maker’ of them all. He possessed a flair for money- 
making not usually associated with artistic temperament. 

Such was the man who, upon the withdrawal of his father in 1841, 
became the sole proprietor of the Bennington Stone Ware Factory, 
and who, at the opening of 1845, as already noted, entered into partner- 
ship with his brother-in-law, Christopher Webber Fenton. It was a 
co-partnership that was foredoomed to inevitable failure. A more ill- 
matched pair it would have been difficult if not impossible to find. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 69 


Norton was unassuming and modest, Fenton was always inclined to be 
arrogant and boastful; Norton was the embodiment of steady con- 
centration, Fenton was flighty and erratic; Norton was the most. 
abstemious of men, Fenton was frequently intemperate; Norton’s 
ways were those of a careful investor, Fenton’s those of the daring 


speculator. 


THE PARTNERSHIP EXPLAINED 

The real reasons for this strange and hopeless partnership can only 
be inferred from the general information we have concerning the firm. 
Most of the documents illustrative of the business relations of the two 
men have long since disappeared. Local traditions in which fact and 
legend are inextricably mingled, our knowledge of the men, scanty 
family records, scattered notices in contemporary newspapers, and 
local gossip more or less dimly remembered are virtually the only 
materials from which any theory may be deduced. That his devotion 
to his favorite sister, Mrs. Fenton, influenced Julius in this matter is 
not unlikely. It was already apparent that Fenton’s greatest weak- 
ness was increasing, and it may well have been thought — by himself 
not less than by others — that the responsibility of such a partnership 
would exert a steadying influence. 

Fenton possessed a mind of unusual fertility; he was quick to grasp 
facts and ideas and ingenious in devising adaptations. He possessed, 
too, a mechanical ingenuity characteristic of some generations of 
ancestors. It is quite easy to understand how a man of his type could 
deeply impress even those who were superior to him in many ways. 
Certainly it is easy to believe the story that of all the Nortons it was 
Julius who best liked his brother-in-law and defended him when he was 


subjected to harsh criticism. 


70 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Julius Norton was determined to make money. He looked upon 
wealth from a point of view quite different from that of his father and 
his grandfather. If the truth must be told, he had little respect for 
their modest standards. He was a child of his age. He frankly wanted 
to be rich, and not merely comfortably well-to-do. To see the business 
grow vast, to be himself an important figure in the world of finance 
and industry — such were the dreams in which he indulged. This 
attitude brought Julius into the sphere of his brother-in-law’s in- 
fluence. Here was the one characteristic they owned in common. 
Fenton also wanted to make money, to be rich. He was only three 
years older than Julius, was a plausible talker, gifted with an almost 
unbounded imagination. He was full of schemes which promised to 
bring large and rapid fortune. He was one of those men who are for- 
ever hatching out plans for the quick acquisition of ‘big money.’ In 
fact, he was always devising and developing plans for great things, 
some of them good plans, too. His talent for starting things was far in 
excess of his power of persistence in keeping them going. It is not at 
all surprising that Julius Norton should have believed that it would 


help him to have Fenton for a partner. 


FENTON’s QUALIFICATIONS 

The foregoing interpretation of the causes which led Julius Norton 
into an association so unsuited to him, and so hopeless, may be mis- 
taken in some of its details, but there is ample warrant for holding it to 
be true as a whole. Certain it is that it was not any special skill or 
merit of Fenton as a practical potter that brought about the partner- 
ship. Without any disparagement of Fenton’s undoubted qualities, 
which amounted almost to genius, he was not a Palissy or a Wedgwood, 
assiduously cultivated legends to the contrary notwithstanding. Pit- 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 71 


kin tells us that ‘We must infer, that Mr. Fenton was a practical pot- 
ter, of extraordinary skill, well-nigh a genius at his trade, artistic in his 
tastes, a naturalist, something of a chemist, a profound student, 
probably erratic and perhaps visionary.’ * For this eulogium there is 
not a shred of supporting evidence. There is nothing in any record of 
the man to warrant the suggestion that he was ‘a naturalist’; not a 
scrap of testimony or evidence can be cited to prove that he was in any 
manner or degree interested in anything which would give him even 
the least claim to the title. 

Nor is there any more evidence to sustain the verdict that he was 
‘a practical potter, of extraordinary skill, well-nigh a genius at his 
trade.’ What evidence there is, clearly and unmistakably points to 
a conclusion diametrically opposite to Pitkin’s rhapsody. Counting 
myself among the admirers of Fenton’s real contribution to American 
pottery, I cannot by silence appear to acquiesce in a verdict so con- 
trary to all the known facts. 

During the past sixteen or seventeen years, it has been my privilege 
to hold many conversations with surviving potters in Bennington, who 
had known Fenton and had worked with him. I have likewise talked 
with old potters living elsewhere who remembered having worked with 
him or under him. Not one of these men has ever suggested that 
Christopher Webber Fenton was specially skilled as a practical potter. 
Were such the case, it would be strange indeed that no trace of a 
legend or tradition of his skill has remained. There are stories and 
echoes of stories concerning the skill of Luman Norton, of Decius W. 
Clark, of Enoch Barber, of Daniel Greatbach, of William Leake, and 
of many others — stories such as old potters in their reminiscent 
moods love to tell but no such tales are ever heard concerning Fenton. 


* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 24. The punctuation is Pitkin’s. 


72 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


When he is talked about, the themes never dwell upon his skill as a 
potter, but upon his habits, his personality, his business methods, his 
relations with Decius W. Clark, and so forth. 

Finally, there are no treasured examples of his handiwork, no re- 
markable pieces made by him and prized on that account. This is 
something that can be said of no single one of the Bennington potters 
whose skill was sufficiently marked to be the subject of comment. I 
can personally account for pieces made by upward of a dozen of the 
old Bennington potters; but, in a careful study of the subject extend- 
ing over many years, and an extensive experience as a fairly successful 
collector, knowing many other collections almost as well as I know my 
own, I have never seen or heard of a single treasured specimen of 
Fenton’s handiwork. 

Neither at the time of forming the partnership with Julius Norton, 
nor at any time thereafter, was Christopher Webber Fenton counted 
‘a practical potter of extraordinary skill.’ In this respect he was far 
inferior to his partner, who was a practical potter of recognized ability. 
The mistake into which Pitkin has fallen — in which he is slavishly 
followed by others — is that of attributing to Fenton the merits and 
achievements of a man who was truly a remarkable potter, and a se- 
rious student of the chemistry of ceramics, Decius W. Clark. 

When he joined Julius Norton in 1845, Fenton had enjoyed only a 
limited experience as a potter. He is supposed to have learned his 
trade at East Dorset, in the pottery of his father, Jonathan Fenton. 
Pitkin says that he was ‘a common red-ware potter.’ * Possibly so, 
though that statement hardly lends support or credence to the asser- 
tions that we have been discussing. It is hard to believe that a potter 
could have developed into a genius such as Pitkin believed Fenton to 

* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 9. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 73 


have become, without more experience in the finer branches of the art 
than a common red-ware pottery affords. 

My examinations of the site of the old Fenton Pottery at East 
Dorset have, however, disclosed the fact that more than ‘common red 
ware’ was made there. I have found an abundance of fragments of 
red ware covered with ‘slip’ on the inside and plain on the outside; red 
ware, lead-glazed inside; red ware covered with ‘slip’ inside and lead- 
glazed without; stoneware salt-glazed, both undecorated and decor- 
ated. In a word, the pottery did a general business. Thus Christopher 
Webber Fenton had a training rather more extensive than is implied 
by the phrase, ‘a common red-ware potter.’ It is certain, however, 
that there was nothing in the kind of work done at the East Dorset 
pottery to develop a potter of such extraordinary skill as Pitkin im- 
agined. Prior to his coming to the Norton Pottery Fenton had no 
experience, so far as there is any evidence, outside of the manufacture 
of coarse earthenware and stoneware. Whatever else he knew when, 
later, he set up in business at Bennington on his own account, he had 
learned at the Norton Pottery. 

In view of this fact, it is rather amusing to find Fenton claiming for 
himself full credit for the high reputation of the wares made at the 
Norton Pottery. Notwithstanding that the Nortons were manu- 
facturing wares which had a deservedly high reputation before he was 
born, and that, when he was yet a mere child, the stoneware products 
of the Norton Pottery were so highly esteemed that the market for 
them extended to several States, he could yet write, or cause to be 
Written, in 1856, that ‘that pottery, now owned by the Messrs. Nor- 
ton, continues to enjoy the high reputation established for it by Mr. 
Fenton, while connected with that business.’ * This ungracious boast- 


* State Banner, March 28, 1856. 


74 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


ing was as silly as it was offensive to those by whom he had been be- 
friended. It was characteristic of the man, whose habit of self-adula- 
tion was so marked that it frequently obscured his more admirable 
qualities, and made association with him over any long period difficult 


for most men. 


THE PoTTERY OF 1845 

The reconstruction of the pottery after the fire of 1845 afforded 
Christopher Webber Fenton his first opportunity to exert anything 
like a profound or important influence upon the industry itself or upon 
the policy of the firm. The works were rebuilt — this time more sub- 
stantially, the building being of brick instead of wood as formerly. 
The new structure was much larger than the old one. It formed a 
hollow square 114 feet by 92 feet,* with an open court or yard in the 
center. It was designed to be, and believed to be, fireproof, and in the 
construction of the building itself, and the arrangement of machinery, 
benches, racks, storage, and so forth, every known improvement was 
introduced. The same may be said of the kilns, of which there were 
three, above the average in size, situated in the western or rear portion 
of the building. Fenton used to claim that he designed the kilns and 
introduced some new features into their construction, and there is 
good reason to believe that this claim was well founded. Not only so, 
but, throughout the whole reconstruction of the plant, his fertile and 
ingenious mind effected many innovations and improvements. 

Whether and to what degree his mind actually originated these 
improvements, or whether it simply developed suggestions received 
from others, cannot be authoritatively told, of course. Whoever has 
studied the history of the Bennington potteries with any approach to 

* Vide Letter of Fenton to C. B. Adams, dated September 15, 1845. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 75 


thoroughness will be inclined to believe that the latter supposition 
is the correct one, I think. Fenton had already entered upon that 
friendship with Decius W. Clark, and that dependence upon him, 
which were to last to the end of his life. 

Clark joined the Norton Pottery late in 1840, having been brought 
there by Julius Norton. A workman of much more than average skill, 
he was also a serious student of everything pertaining to the manu- 
facture of ceramics. It is not too much to say that he was one of the 
most extraordinary men that the pottery industry in this country has 
produced. When the story of the United States Pottery is reached in 
the course of our narrative, it will be seen that he was its one creative 
force. That he worked through and with Fenton is certain, and there 
is good reason to believe that he had already begun to do so in 1845, 
and that Fenton’s contributions to the improvement of the building, 
the kilns, and the machinery were actually the outcome of Clark’s 
creative thought. 

To say this is not to lessen the importance of Fenton, let me hasten 
to observe at this point, to prevent misunderstanding. There is no 
more useful genius than he who gives living reality to the thoughts 
and dreams of others. To take the thought of another, grasp its 
significance, develop its possibilities, perceive its value, translate it 
into terms of actual achievement, when, without such appropriation, 
the thought would die barren, is creative work of the highest order 
and utmost value. And that is precisely what Christopher Webber 
Fenton accomplished. 

It took virtually all of the remaining months of 1845 to complete 
the new pottery and get into operation again. As early as 1843 Julius 
Norton had considered adding the manufacture of porcelain to the 
business, and had sent to England for an expert modeller with that end 


76 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


in view. At the time Fenton joined his brother-in-law in partnership, 
experiments in porcelain-making were being carried on, and when the 
fire took place, making the construction of a new building necessary, 
it was decided to set aside one wing of the building for the manufacture 
of porcelain. The north wing was accordingly devoted to that special 
purpose. Here, then, is the little grain of truth in a familiar legend 
which we have already examined at some length. It appears, however, 
that before the new building was finished, Julius Norton had reached 
the conclusion that it would be unwise to continue the experiments in 
porcelain-making — for it had not progressed beyond the experi- 
mental stage. Whether that decision reflected anything more than 
characteristic caution on the part of Julius Norton is not known. It 
should be said that, contrary to a widely prevalent belief, Julius 
Norton was every bit as progressive as his brother-in-law. In the 
advertisement which we have quoted earlier in this chapter from the 
State Banner of February 27, 1841, appears a list which indicates quite 
clearly that, years before Fenton became his partner, Julius Norton 
was reaching out far beyond anything that had been attempted under 
his father’s management. 

One of the ‘Ink Stands’ referred to in that advertisement was 
formerly owned by Edward Norton, and is now in my collection, a 
gift from his widow, Mrs. Edward Norton, of Bennington. It is made 
of gray stoneware, similar to that used for jugs, churns, and other 
articles, and is decorated with cobalt blue. The stand itself is rather 
elaborately ornamented with scrollwork, and is characteristic of the 
period in its ugliness. The dog, however, is splendidly modeled and 
executed. The combination of blue and gray is well managed and 
exceedingly effective. This inkstand and the announcement in the 
advertisement that he was manufacturing ‘Plain and Fancy Pitchers’ 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 77 


show that Julius Norton was advancing his standards before Fenton 
became his partner. Not less than the latter was he influenced by that 
urge for progress which was stirring the industry in America at that 
time. [See Plate VII] 


EXPERIMENTS WITH PORCELAIN 

There had recently been a great deal of improvement made in the 
manufacture of porcelain in England. Importations of this English 
ware had greatly increased. In the large shops of the principal cities 
the goods of the best English manufacturers were carried, and they 
found their way into the homes of the people. There was a stirring of 
interest in the principal potteries of New England, New York, and 
New Jersey. The keenest interest of all was aroused by the appear- 
ance upon the American market of a new type of porcelain, sometimes 
called Statuary Porcelain and sometimes Parian Ware. The names 
themselves indicate the character of this new material: because its 
texture and finish closely resembled Parian marble, Parian was the 
name generally given to it within the trade, and because — on account 
of the peculiar quality mentioned — it was successfully used for the 
reproduction of sculpture, and was at first used mainly for making 
small ornamental figures which bore a close resemblance to sculptured 
marble, the name Statuary Ware or Statuary Porcelain was featured 
commercially. 

This new type of porcelain had been introduced to the English and 
American markets in 1843. Although there has been a good deal of 
controversy upon the subject — too extensive and voluminous to be 
entered upon in this history — there is no doubt in my mind that the 
credit of having originated Parian porcelain belongs to Copeland, of 
Stoke-on-Trent, who made some splendid examples early in 1842. 


78 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Minton, Wedgwood, Moore Brothers, of London, The Worcester 
Royal Porcelain Company, and other noted English makers were soon 
in the field, some with exceedingly beautiful productions. Not in a 
generation had the introduction of any new or improved ware awak- 
ened such widespread interest. 

When Julius Norton decided to send to England for the modeler, 
John Harrison, his intention was to experiment with the manufacture 
of porcelain from local materials. That he was urged to do this by 
Fenton we may take for granted. It is extremely likely that both men, 
together with such men as Decius W. Clark, were keenly interested in 
the new Statuary Ware. It is not probable, however, that Norton had 
any definite plan of becoming the first American manufacturer to 
introduce the new ware. Neither he nor Fenton could have known 
enough about its manufacture to warrant a man like Julius Norton in 
so far committing himself. It was to institute the manufacture of 
porcelain in general, and not the Parian Ware in particular, that John 
Harrison was sent for. Believing that excellent porcelain could be 
manufactured from local materials, which could be had as easily and 
cheaply as English manufacturers obtained theirs, Fenton had urged 
that the manufacture of porcelain should be tried, upon a small scale 
at first, and Norton had agreed to attempt the experiment. One end 
of the pottery was set aside for this purpose. 

Little is known of John Harrison. Beyond the tradition that he had 
previously worked for Copeland at Stoke-on-Trent, we have no infor- 
mation about him. He is believed to have arrived at Bennington 
toward the end of 1843, and to have brought with him many designs, 
models, and finished pieces, some of which had not yet been placed 
upon the market, even in England. One of the earliest pieces modeled 


by Harrison after his arrival here is in my collection. Its sentimental 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 79 


associations are not less interesting than the historical one just noted. 
The first child of Julius Norton, Eliza, was born November 23, 1843. 
Harrison appears to have decided that his first successful demonstra- 
tion should be a gift to the wife of his employer, in honor of the birth 
of the baby. When she presented this piece to a member of the Norton 
family, many years later, Mrs. Norton said that it was made and pre- 
sented to her on the occasion of the birth of her first child. It is ex- 
tremely unlikely, of course, that it was ready for the event, or that it 
was given to her until she was able to receive visitors. It is equally 
unlikely that the presentation took place more than a few weeks after 
the date abovenamed. 

The piece is a small elliptical basket in which reposes a sleeping child 
surrounded with flowers and fruit. It is about three and one half 
inches long by two and one quarter inches wide and one inch in height. 
The basket is a deep blue gray, unglazed, ornamented on the bottom 
and around the sides with a conventional acanthus-leaf design. The 
top is white. In a bed of finely shredded moss lies the nude child, well 
modeled, with fruit and blossoms — the latter especially in bold relief. 

In 1861, after the death of her husband, and prior to her removal 
from Bennington, Mrs. Norton gave the little piece to a relative, Mrs. 
Daniel McEowen, granddaughter of Captain John Norton; she, in 
turn, gave it to another relative, Miss Luther, a young girl, a great- 
great-granddaughter of Captain John Norton. The existence of this 
little piece and its sentimental history were well known to members 
of the Norton family in Bennington long before I acquired it, and they 
have been gratified by its return to Bennington. Of its authenticity 
there is not the least shadow of doubt. It may fairly be accepted as 
the first piece of porcelain made at the Bennington pottery. It is not 
impossible, or even unlikely, that it was made of English materials 


80 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


brought by Harrison for experimental work, but that, of course, can- 
not be determined. Crude and naive in design, this tiny porcelain 
sculpture is exquisitely wrought, and I have felt that its resemblance 
to some of the early Copeland Parian pieces is not to be mistaken. 
A companion piece, in pure white, having the fruit and flowers, but no 
baby, was made at the same time and presented to a young lady, Miss 
Park. Possibly the pure white and the omission of the baby were a 
tribute to virginity.* 

In a letter which Fenton wrote to C. B. Adams, dated September 15, 
1845, he refers to the fire and the rebuilding of the pottery as having 
‘suspended all my experiments in the manufacture of porcelain, to an 
indefinite period.’ John Harrison is believed to have returned to 
England soon after the fire, and it is not unlikely that the decision of 
the firm that it would be necessary to give up the plan to manufacture 
porcelain was responsible for his return to his native land. If the gossip 
of later days is to be relied upon, Harrison left behind him one example 
of his craftsmanship that was destined to become famous and much 
sought after — but of that more anon. Norton & Fenton appear to 
have resumed experimentation in the manufacture of porcelain, in a 
small way, but they never manufactured it on a commercial scale. 


Norton & Fenton DissoLvE PARTNERSHIP 
By the beginning of 1846 the new pottery was in full swing. It is 
noteworthy that none of the advertisements published during that 
year make any reference to porcelain, nor is any mention made of it in 
the local press. Whatever experimental work was carried on in the 
north wing of the pottery, was tentative and had not developed to the 
point of commercial practicability. By means of the published ad- 


* This piece is also in my collection. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 81 


vertisements we are in a position to follow the whole course of the 
story of the firm of Norton & Fenton. The first advertisement is from 
the State Banner, a paper published in the lower village, commonly 
called East Bennington at that time: 


NORTON & FENTON 


Manufacturers of Every Description of 


STONE WARE 
East Bennington, Vt. 





Beginning with March 16, 1846, and continuing every week, the 
advertisement ran in this form, unchanged, until Monday, April 19, 
1847. In the next issue, and thereafter to November 15, 1847, it ran 
with a slight change. The body of the advertisement was not altered, 
but the name East Bennington was dropped and Bennington was 
used instead. Mark that, in this paper, East Bennington was used 
prior to April 19, 1847, and Bennington from that time to the middle 
of November. Now, let us turn to another local paper, the Vermont 
Gazette. As there were two papers published with that title, one in the 
upper village and one in the lower, it is necessary to make clear which 
of the two is meant. The following advertisement, then, is from the 
V ermont Gazette published in the lower village, by J. C. Haswell, and 
the date is March 17, 1847: 


NORTON & FENTON 


Manufacturers of Every Description of 


STONE WARE 
Bennington, Vt. 





This advertisement ran regularly through successive issues up to De- 


82 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


cember 1, 1847. On that date the paper carried two other advertise- 
ments from which we learn much. The first of these supplies the exact 


date of the dissolution of the Norton and Fenton co-partnership: 


The Co-partnership heretofore existing between the subscribers 
was dissolved by mutual consent, June 25, 1847. 
Ju.tius Norton 


C. W. Fenton 


November 23, 1847. 


The business of the late firm is continued by the subscriber at 
the old stand. 

Juiius Norton 
November 23, 1847. 





This appears to have been the first formal announcement of the 
dissolution of the firm of Norton & Fenton. At the same time ap- 
peared the first announcement that Fenton had started in business 


upon his own account: 


C. W. FENTON 


Manufacturer of Yellow Fire Proof Ware, Dark Lustre or 


Rockingham Ware, White Flint Ware, Earthen and China. 
Bennington, Vt. 





As already noted, the State Banner published the Norton & Fenton 
advertisement from March 16, 1846, to November 15, 1847. One week 
later the advertisement of Julius Norton took its place, and was regu- 
larly published to the end of March, 1848. 

These announcements are of the highest importance for the reason 
that they enable us to clear up a number of points concerning which 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 83 


there has been much confusion. We are now able to assert with cer- 
tainty that (a) the partnership of Julius Norton and Christopher 
Webber Fenton, which was entered into between June 30, 1844, and 
January 1, 1845, was terminated June 25, 1847; (b) there were only two 
partners, neither Henry Hall nor any other third person being as- 
sociated with them; (c) all pottery marked Norton & Fenton belongs 
to the brief period of the partnership, three years, or less, 1844-1847; 
(d) Christopher W. Fenton began manufacturing on his own account 
sometime between June 25 and November 23, 1847. Upon each of 
these points there has been a great deal of uncertainty and almost 
unlimited speculation, which, by virtue of these authentic announce- 
ments, may now be finally dismissed. 

It is worthy of note that the advertisements of Norton & Fenton, 
of Julius Norton and C. W. Fenton, covering the period from Febru- 
ary, 1846, to November, 1847, inclusive, are all equally free from any 
mention of Parian or any other kind of porcelain. In the absence of 
any positive evidence to the contrary, we are not merely justified in 
believing that none had been produced on a commercial scale up to 
that time, but are compelled so to believe. Refusal by Norton to go on 
with the manufacture of porcelain may well have been among the 
causes of the separation, and it is quite likely that Judge Luman 
Norton, though no longer in the firm, advised his son, Julius Norton, 
to stick to the old and well-established lines. This is probably the 
germ of fact which became enshrouded in the romantic legend already 
noted at the opening of this chapter. 

To conclude our historical survey of the brief connection of Fenton 
with the Norton Pottery, as a part proprietor, it may be well to sum- 
marize another episode brought forth from searchings in the advertis- 


ing columns of contemporary newspapers. It has never been men- 


84 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


tioned by any other writer, and was wholly unknown to members of 
the Norton family now living and to the daughter of Albert Walker. 
It throws new light upon the career of Fenton and suggests that, in 
addition to the reasons already given for the dissolution of the part- 
nership between him and Julius Norton, there was another strong and 
compelling reason. The following advertisement first appeared in the 
State Banner, April 3, 1848.* With trifling changes in the wording 
(the change of the date to March Io, 1849, and the substitution of 
‘two years ago’ for ‘one year ago’: it was regularly published until 
March 1, 1851, and possibly after that date: 


NOTICE 


The late firm of ‘A. Walker & Co.,’ manufacturers of Gun 
and Blasting Powper, was dissolved about one year since, 
Mr. Walker having retired from the business. 

The firm has since that time been ‘Lyman, Fenton & Co.,’ 
to whom all communications and orders for Powder should be 


addressed. 


Our mills were built with great expense with the intention of 
making a better article than is made at any other mill in the 
country. We make nothing but the best of Wheel Powder, and 
are determined at all times to give satisfaction in quality as 
well as price. 


Lyman, Fenton & Co. 
East Bennington, March 14, 1848. 





This advertisement shows that, up to March, 1847, or thereabouts, 
Fenton had been a partner in another business quite unrelated to the 
manufacture of pottery. That Julius Norton should have become 


dissatisfied by reason of his partner’s divided interest and attention at 
yi p 


* From April 5, 1848, to the end of the year this advertisement was also published in the 
Vermont Gazette, the East village paper of that name. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 85 


the time when the extension of the business was engrossing all his own 
time, is a reasonable conjecture. Moreover, the dissolution of the firm 
of A. Walker & Co. involved an unpleasant family entanglement. 
Like Fenton, Albert Walker was Julius Norton’s brother-in-law. 
Christopher W. Fenton was the junior member of the powder manu- 
facturing firm, Albert Walker being the senior member. In some 
manner not now known, Walker was edged out and the firm became 
Lyman & Fenton. A good deal of unpleasant feeling resulted from 
this development. Mr. Walker and a partner named Harrington 
started another powder manufactory in another part of the town, 
being assisted, it is believed, by the former’s father-in-law, Judge Lu- 
man Norton. That the episode adversely affected the partnership of 
Julius Norton and Christopher W. Fenton is practically certain. The 
advertisement is of further interest because it shows that the firm of 
Lyman & Fenton, which for some years was engaged in the manu- 
facture of pottery, and whose trade-mark is so familiar to all collectors 
of Bennington ware, was originally formed for quite another kind of 


business. 


Norton & Fenton Propucts 

So much for the history of the business side of the firm of Norton 
& Fenton. Of greater interest to the student of our ceramic history is 
the firm’s contribution to the development of the pottery industry in 
this country. We have already observed that Julius Norton had 
already begun to increase the variety and improve the quality of his 
wares before Fenton joined the firm. We have described in some detail 
the preparatory steps taken toward the manufacture of porcelain, 
steps which had no commercial result up to the time of the dissolution 


of the partnership. It remains now only to make a rapid survey of the 


86 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


various lines of manufacture followed while the partnership was in 
force, and, later, by Julius Norton himself. 

Pitkin is in error when he says that the firm of Norton & Fenton 
made ‘nothing but stoneware and brown-glazed pottery.’* In the 
north wing of the pottery, where the experiments in porcelain-making 
were carried on, several kinds of ware other than ‘stoneware and 
brown-glazed pottery’ were made. Cheap white ware for table use, 
known to the trade as Common White, was made in large quantity. 
About two miles away, in what is locally known as the Lyons District, 
was a plentiful supply of white clay of good average color, exceedingly 
plastic, and therefore admirably adapted for use as Ball Clay. Highly 
vitreous when fired, when mixed with china clay and a small percent- 
age of feldspar it produced a body that was durable and fairly fine. 
Given a glaze compounded of certain proportions of white lead — or 
_ even litharge — feldspar, flint, whiting, and china clay, the result was 
an excellent white ware for ordinary table use, at a price not higher 
than that asked for the inferior ware of the same general type then 
sold. 

A cheap grade of Common Yellow was made in much the same way. 
The mixture of the body differed only slightly, and the glaze mainly 
in that about twenty-five per cent less lead was used, about half the 
quantities of feldspar and flint, and no whiting. In this ware the 
coarser and heavier domestic utensils were made — milkpans, pitchers, 
mixing-bowls, baking-dishes, and the like. Neither the white nor the 
yellow ware made at this time was marked in any manner, and its 
identification is absolutely impossible. A great deal of both kinds of 
ware is found locally, particularly in old houses, but as their manu- 
facture was continued by C. W. Fenton after the dissolution of 


* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 24. 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 87 


Norton & Fenton, and then by the firms he later organized — the whole 
covering a period of fifteen years — there is no method whereby wares 
of these two groups made by Norton & Fenton in 1845-1847 may be 
distinguished from those of the same types made later, from 1847 to 
1860. Not merely so, but wares of identical appearance, and of quality 
indistinguishable from those made by Norton & Fenton, have been 
made in hundreds of potteries, over a long period of years, and there is 
no method known whereby the most expert can distinguish between 
many of these and the Norton & Fenton products. 

At the same time was begun the manufacture of the familiar brown- 
glazed ware, generally known — in this country, at least — as Rock- 
ingham. When first introduced it was frequently called Dark Lustre, 
the name Fenton preferred and strove hard to popularize. As the 
known examples of this ware made by Norton & Fenton are all 
marked, we are able to identify them, and, what is even more im- 
portant from some points of view, to tell wherein their manufacture 
differed from wares of the same name made later on at the United 
States Pottery. This Rockingham has been defined as ‘a yellow ware, 
spattered before firing, with a brown clay, which gives it the mottled 
appearance.’* That is not a correct description of ninety-five per cent 
of the Rockingham made at Bennington during the fifteen years of its 
manufacture; it is wholly misleading as a description of the Rocking- 
ham Ware made by Norton & Fenton. Leaving for later consideration 
the improvements made in the Rockingham Ware by Lyman, Fenton 
& Co., and by the United States Pottery Company, and considering 
now only the Norton & Fenton product, it is perhaps sufficient to say 
that at this period the body of the Rockingham Ware was identical 
with that of the Common Yellow; that it was burned, and, when in 


* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 18. 


88 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


the ‘biscuit’ stage, was glazed. It was not ‘spattered with brown clay,’ 
but dipped into a glaze compounded of red lead, clay, ground feldspar, 
and flint, with some manganese added. From the latter was derived 
the brown color. With the precise formula we are not here and now 
concerned: it is enough to note the component parts of the glaze and 
to remark that, in view of the fact that clay constituted less than one 
ninth of the whole, it is incorrect to refer to it as ‘brown clay.’ There 
is a difference between clay and glaze. 


Juttus Norton REsuMEs 

After separating himself from Fenton, Julius Norton carried on the 
business alone. He did not continue to make either the Common 
White or the Common Yellow. By agreement, this branch of the in- 
dustry was left for exploitation by Fenton. The manufacture of Rock- 
ingham was likewise left to Fenton, Julius Norton confining himself 
to the production of stoneware. It is true that, in later years, the 
manufacture of Rockingham was resumed by the latter, but with that 
we have no present concern. Julius Norton once more marked his 
stoneware with his name, as he had done from 1841 to 1844. All 
pottery so marked, therefore, belongs to one of these periods, 1841- 
1844 and 1847-1850. 


J. & E. Norton, 1850-1859 
In 1850 Edward Norton, cousin of Julius, was taken into partner- 
ship and the firm name became J. & E. Norton. All pottery so 
marked belongs to the period 1850-1859. Edward Norton was the 
son of John Norton, who was the second son of Captain John Norton, 
the founder of the business. Born in 1815, he spent his childhood in the 
old Norton home. He was educated in the district school and at the 


pi ge? eee Pee 


a) oe i 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 89 


Bennington Academy, in the old village. As a youth he ‘clerked’ in his 
father’s store, and subsequently became a part proprietor, his partner 
being one Abel Wills. 

On joining the pottery firm as his cousin’s partner, Edward Norton 
devoted himself largely to salesmanship and to the management of the 
considerable out-of-town trade. At that time the ware was conveyed 
to all parts of New York and New England in huge wagons, and 
Edward Norton frequently accompanied these, taking orders, settling 
accounts, and so forth. He appears to have had a limited partnership 
at first, sharing in the earnings but not in the ownership of the pro- 
perties. Paying a large part of his share of the profits to his partner, by 
April, 1861, he had acquired a one-third share in the property. By 
1865 he had acquired one half. 

Like so many members of his family, Edward Norton was an ardent 
and active member of the Masonic fraternity. For many years he was 
the treasurer of Mount Anthony Lodge, F. & A.M., and was greatly 
honored and beloved by his brethren. To this day his memory is 
cherished by many:of the older members of the fraternity. He was 


respected as one of Bennington’s finest citizens. 


J. & E. Norton & Co., 1859-1861 

In 1859 the firm was enlarged by the admission of Luman Preston 
Norton, the only son of Julius Norton, the senior partner. The young 
man was then twenty-two years of age, and had just graduated from 
Union College, Schenectady. The firm name was again changed — 
this time to J. & E. Norton & Co. This was the mark used upon the 
stoneware from 1859 to 1861, when the death of Julius Norton made 
another change necessary. Julius Norton died October 5, 1861. The 
local newspaper recorded his death in the following paragraph: 


90 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


SusTAINED A Loss. — Bennington has sustained a great loss in the death 
of one of its oldest, most enterprising citizens. Mr. Jutrus Norton expired 
at his residence in this village last Saturday night. His disease was apoplexy, 
with other ailings combined, and he has been quite low for some weeks. 
Mr. Norton has long been a resident of this place. He was the senior 
member of the firm of J. & E. Norton & Co., in the Stone Ware manufactory 
and has always been known for his uprightness in business dealings. His 
energy was great; for affability not less so. His friends were numerous, and 
his death has occasioned deep felt regret. His age was 52 years. 


THe PERiop REVIEWED 

At this point we may well suspend the chronological record and, 
regarding the death of Julius Norton as marking the close of an im- 
portant chapter in the enterprise, make a brief review of the progress 
and growth of the business from the time of its removal to the lower 
village, in 1833, to the death of Julius, in 1861. By the middle of 1835 
there were about twenty-five hands employed, which was double the 
number employed at the end of 1830. By 1850 the number had in- 
creased to about forty. In the Vermont State Banner, November 23, 
1850, an anonymous writer, in an article principally dealing with the 
establishment of Lyman, Fenton & Co., and signed ‘A Visitor,’ wrote: 


Not far from these works is the Stone Ware Factory of Mr. Julius Norton, 
a descendant of a family of the same name, who have carried on the business 
in Bennington for upwards of 80 years. It is the largest establishment of its 
kind in the Union; and it is conceded on all hands, I believe, that he sends to 
all parts of New England and New York, the best quality and best manu- 
factured ware in the country. The building is of brick with slated roof, about 
one hundred feet square, aside from the sheds and kilns adjoining. Benning- 
ton, it would seem, bids fair to become the great central position for the 
manufacture of different kinds of Pottery Ware in the United States. 


In an account of Bennington Village, contributed by N. B. Hall to 
the Vermont Historical Magazine, written in 1859 and published in the 
following year, it is said that at that time the Stone Ware Pottery 





EXPANSION AND PROGRESS — 1833-1861 gI 


employed ‘about 30 hands.’ This is either a misprint or an error on 
the writer’s part, for at that time the Stone Ware Pottery was at or 
near its zenith, and the number of its employees was nearer fifty than 
thirty. As to whether.or not it was ‘the largest establishment of its 
kind in the Union,’ as stated by the anonymous writer already 
quoted, I have not investigated, but it is improbable. 

This chapter would be incomplete if no mention were made of the 
spirit which pervaded the pottery during these years, the ties of friend- 
ship and fellowship which bound employers and employed into a sort 
of brotherhood. This was characteristic of the old Norton Pottery, 
first under Captain John Norton and then under his sons. It was con- 
tinued by Julius, and became traditional. To this day, old potters who 
worked under the latter are fond of recalling the fraternal spirit which 
prevailed in the works under his management. Something of the 
spirit of the ancient guilds prevailed among these potters here in old 
Vermont in the middle of the nineteenth century. During one hundred 
and one years there was never an industrial dispute of any kind in the 


Norton Potteries. 


IV 
THE LAST PHASE 
E. & L. P. Norton, 1861-1881 

PON the death of Julius Norton, in 1861, the business was 

carried on by the two remaining members of the firm, 

Edward and Luman * Preston Norton, under the firm name 
of E. & L. P. Norton, which is found impressed upon a greater number 
of pieces of stoneware — and upon a greater variety of articles — than 
any other of the many marks used during the long history of the 
Norton Potteries, extending over a full century — 1793-1894. Pieces 
bearing this mark are extremely common, a circumstance which is not 
surprising when we remember that the partnership of Edward and 
Luman Preston Norton lasted just twenty years, from 1861 to 1881 — 
a longer period than that covered by any other of the numerous 
partnerships in the long history of the business. 

Luman Preston Norton was a man of marked ability and sterling 
character, worthily maintaining the high standards of his family. He 
was the business manager of the firm, his partner caring for the 
industrial end of the concern. No business man in the community 
was more highly respected, alike on account of his sterling character 
and his business sagacity. When, in 1882, the Village of Bennington 
acquired a new charter, he was elected President of the village. He 
was also the first president of the Bennington County Savings Bank. 
Like so many of his family, he was keenly interested in Masonic 
affairs and passed through all the chairs of the local Lodge. 

The Civil War period was a severe test for this and for all other 


* Pitkin erroneously gives the name as Lyman. 





THE LAST PHASE 93 


similar enterprises. The firm of E. & L. P. Norton passed through the 
ordeal of those difficult years, thanks to the high reputation of the 
Norton products, the splendid repute of the Norton name, and the 
sagacious management of the business by Luman P. Norton. For a 
decade there was little opportunity for expansion, and it is not at all 
surprising that there is so little to chronicle concerning the firm dur- 
ing that time. It weathered the Civil War and the critical post-war 
period of readjustment — 1866-1869 — and faced the future with con- 
fidence, notwithstanding the fact that the steady growth of potteries 
in the Middle West indicated a narrowing market and a sterner com- 
petition. Then came the disastrous fire of March 20, 1874. 


THE Fire oF 1874 

The fire broke out in the night and spread with great rapidity. The 
cause of the outbreak was identical with that of the 1845 disaster —a 
smouldering fire in the framework of heavy timbers surrounding one 
of the kilns was fanned into flame by a strong wind. An account of the 
fire published in a local newspaper says that on Sunday afternoon one 
of the employees, Fred Godfrey, discovered that the storeroom of the 
pottery, in the upper part of the building, was filled with smoke. He 
notified L. P. Norton, one of the two proprietors, and together they 
poured water over the smouldering timbers, until they believed that 
by so doing they had averted all possible danger. Later, when it was 
too late, it was discovered that they had not extinguished the fire as 
they had supposed. When the timbers had dried, as they quickly did, 
the smouldering fire again burst into flame under the influence of a gale 
that developed during the night. 

It was a severe blow to the firm. The building was completely 


gutted, though a considerable portion of the walls remained standing. 


94 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


The tools and most of the machinery were completely destroyed, as 
was the large stock of finished ware on hand — the largest accumula- 
tion in the history of the business. One of the kilns was ruined and 
had to be completely rebuilt. 

The loss was estimated at about thirty thousand dollars, for the 
most part uncovered by insurance. Mr. Edward Norton had per- 
mitted most of the insurance upon his half-interest to expire, holding 
at the time just one policy for five thousand dollars — of which one 
thousand dollars was on the wood supply in the yard, which was not 
destroyed, so that the total amount of insurance he held upon the 
building and contents was just four thousand dollars. The other 
member of the firm, Luman P. Norton, had permitted the insurance 
he had long carried upon his share to lapse some time before the fire.* 

Notwithstanding the extent of their loss, and the fact that it had 
been apparent for some time that the competition of the potteries of 
the Middle West was growing in volume and intensity, the work of 
rebuilding, upon a larger scale than before, was immediately begun. 
Before the end of the summer the factory was once more in operation, 
and through the streets of the village passed the familiar wagons laden 


with wares for distant points. 


Tue Potrery Wacons 
Concerning these famous ‘pottery wagons,’ each drawn by a fine 
team of four horses driven by a silk-hatted and white-frocked driver, 
so many writers have given inaccurate accounts that a brief statement 
concerning them may be worth while. To avoid repetition later on, 
it may be observed that what is said of the Norton wagons applies 
equally to the similar delivery teams of the United States Pottery. 


* Bennington Banner, March 23, 1874. 





THE LAST PHASE 9s 


It seems to be a prevalent belief that the ware carried in these 
wagons was peddled from door to door by the drivers. As a matter of 
fact, no such ‘peddling’ was done. When one recalls the character of 
the roads over which the teams had to travel — particularly the 
mountain roads — it may well be imagined that extraordinary care 
had to be used in packing the ware, especially in the case of the finer 
products of the United States Pottery. To stop at a farmhouse, un- 
pack enough ware to provide an assortment from which a prospective 
customer might choose, repack it, drive a mile or two and go through 
the same process would have been altogether too expensive in time 
and certain breakages. It would have taken an entire day to cover 
one village, in door-to-door visits. 

The wagons were for delivering ware, not for peddling it. The firm 
had its agency in virtually every town and village. In most cases this 
was a general store. Orders were taken on one trip and filled at the 
next, the ware for each agent or customer being packed in ‘tierces,’ 
specially built for the purpose. In this manner ware was carried all 
over New England and up into Canada, as well as throughout New 
York and New Jersey. 


E. Norton, 1881-1883 
In 1881 Luman P. Norton retired from the firm and from the pot- 
tery business, selling his interest to his partner, Edward Norton, who 
became sole proprietor. From 1881 to 1883 the ware produced was 
marked £. Norton, Bennington, Vt. 


EpwarpD Norton & Company, 1883-1893 
In July, 1883, Edward Norton sold a half-interest in the business to 
C. W. Thatcher, of Bennington. The firm name Edward Norton & 


96 THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Company was stamped on all wares made from that time until 1886, 
and, more or less, to 1893. Until Mr. Thatcher came into the business 
through his purchase of the half-interest that had formerly been held 
by Luman P. Norton, only one person outside of the Norton family 
had ever participated in the ownership of the pottery. That was 
Christopher W. Fenton — and he was connected with the Norton 
family by marriage. 

Two years after the entrance of C. W. Thatcher into the firm came 
the death of Edward Norton, on August 3, 1885. He was seventy 
years old when he died, having been born at the old homestead of 
Captain John Norton, by the original pottery, August 23, 1815. Of 
him it may be said that he was worthy of his race, the peer of a line 
of noted craftsmen, honored for their probity of character and their 
constant exemplification of the primal virtues. Edward Norton was 
held in high esteem and respect by his fellow citizens, among whom 
he walked uprightly, dealing justly with all, and bestowing com- 
passion and aid upon the needy to the utmost of his power. 


Epwarp Lincotn Norton 

His place was taken by his son, Edward Lincoln Norton, then a 
young man of twenty, who, for some three years, had been employed 
as salesman for the firm. Upon succeeding to his father’s interest, 
Edward L. Norton proposed a radical departure. It was obvious that 
the manufacture of stoneware could not be carried on profitably, 
except upon the smallest possible scale to serve the immediate local 
market. There was no hope of meeting the low prices of the potteries 
of the Middle West with their low manufacturing costs. That the 
Bennington ware was superior in quality to most of the product of 


Ohio and Illinois was freely conceded; but that was of small im- 


Pe 
’ 
4 





THE LAST PHASE 97 


portance. Stoneware was stoneware, and the inferior goods from 
Ohio would serve every practical end just as well as the superior 
article from Bennington. 

So Edward Lincoln Norton proposed that the firm, which was now 
known as The Edward Norton Company, should undertake wholesale 
dealing in glassware, china, and pottery of all kinds. The proposal 
was adopted, and the venture soon proved profitable. This departure 
from the old line of business is of especial interest to collectors for the 
reason that many pieces which are quite unlike anything known to 
have been made at Bennington, but which are vouched for by cred- 
ible witnesses, who know that they were ‘bought at the Bennington 
pottery, are found on investigation to have been purchased at the 
time when the wholesale business was flourishing. I know of pieces 
of pottery of indubitable English make, some even bearing English 
makers’ marks, which were bought at the pottery in Bennington at this 
period. Other pieces, unquestionably purchased at the Bennington 
establishment during this period, were as certainly made in Jersey City. 

Steadily, year by year, the volume of this wholesale business grew, 
while the manufacture of stoneware was maintained upon a small 
scale. In 1893, when the firm celebrated the one hundredth anniver- 
sary of the founding of its business, its actual output of pottery was 
probably no larger than it had been at the end of Captain John 
Norton’s first year of operation. Yet it was possible to say that the 
pottery business had been carried on for a full hundred years, almost 
exclusively by Nortons. Edward L. Norton was planning to revive 
the manufacturing end of the business, and was negotiating with 
potters, with a view to beginning the manufacture of different kinds 
of pottery, when, in 1894, he died, aged only twenty-nine years. 

And the wheel of the potter was stilled forever. 


A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ALL MARKS USED BY 
THE NORTON POTTERIES 


Note: As the marks used by the Norton Potteries consisted simply of stamped plain 
lettering, with no ornamentation or devices of any kind, it has been thought unnecessary to 
list minor variations in the arrangement of the same words, as, for example, when ‘ Benning- 
ton, Vt.’ is printed on two lines instead of on one. As a general rule, the name and address 
occupy two lines. One line and three lines are uncommon arrangements. Where the mark 
takes the form of an arrangement of the words in a circle, the fact is here indicated. The 
principal value of this list to the collector is, of course, the fact that it provides a complete 
and convenient check-list by means of which any piece of stoneware bearing a Norton mark 
may be dated with virtual certainty. 


L. Norton & Co., BennincTon, VT. 1823-1828 
L. Norton, BENNINGTON, VT. 1828-1833 
L. Norton & Son, East BENNINGTON, yey 

L. Norton & Son, BENNINGTON, VT. 

Juttus Norton, East BENNINGTON, Vr. 

J. Norton, East BenniNGcTON, VT. 

Ju.tius Norton, BennincTon, VT. 

J. Norton, BENNINGTON, VT. 

Norton & Fenton, East BENNINGTON, VT. 
Norton & Fenton, BEnninNcTON, VT. 


1833-1840 
1841-1844(5) 


1844(5)-1847 


Jutius Norton, BENNINGTON, Kee 9 9 
J. Norton, BENNINGTON, VT. Lane 
J. & E. Norton, Bennineton, Vr. 1850-1859 
J. Norton & Co., BENNINGTON. VT. Senttee 
J. & E. Norton & Co., BENNINGTON, VT. gabe gti 
E. & L. P. Norton, BennincrTon, Vr. 1861-1881 
FE. Norton, BENNINGTON, VT. 1881-1883 
Epwarpb Norton, BENNINGTON, VT. 
Epwarpb Norton & Co., BENNINGTON, VT. 

1883-1894 


E. Norton & Co., BENNINGTON, VT. 
Epwarpb Norton & Company, BENNINGTON, VT. 
(Sometimes the word ‘Company’ is spelled in full) 
Epwarp Norton Company, BENNINGTON, VT. 1886-1894 
(This last mark is uncommon). 
BENNINGTON Factory 
(This mark is exceedingly rare — I know of only one piece so marked —. 
and the date of its use is unknown.) 


* Sometimes arranged in a circle. 


THE LAST PHASE 99 


In his discussion of the marks found upon Bennington pottery, Pitkin directs attention 
to the elliptical mark formed of the words ‘Norton & Fenton, Bennington, Vt.’ which he 
designates as ‘Mark 1,’ and the mark composed of the words ‘Norton & Fenton, East Ben- 
nington, Vt.,’ in two straight lines, which he designates as ‘Mark 2.’ If by the numerical 
designations he intended to state the order of their use, giving priority to the first-named, he 
is almost certainly in error. 

No Benningtonian who knows history would care to base any opinion upon the point 
solely on the basis of the use of the name ‘East Bennington.’ At the period we are here dis- 
cussing, ‘Bennington’ and ‘East Bennington’ were in equally common use as the name of the 
lower village. It is not at all surprising that Norton & Fenton used both names with little 
discrimination or plan. This was the common practice. The Vermont State Banner, for 
example, used ‘East Bennington’ in its heading on Monday, April 19, 1847, as it had done 
for some weeks. On Monday, April 26, 1847, and for several weeks thereafter, it used ‘Ben- 
nington.’ The issue of the same paper for February 7th, 1848, is dated from ‘Bennington,’ 
but that of the 14th is dated from “East Bennington.’ It would be easy to multiply such 
examples, ad infinitum. My own opinion, that “East Bennington’ was used by Norton & 
Fenton somewhat earlier than ‘Bennington,’ is entirely based upon the usage adopted in the 
firm’s advertisements. It is probable that their markings corresponded with their formal 
announcements in this particular. 

Of the ‘East Bennington’ mark Pitkin observes, ‘A brown glazed pitcher in the Pitkin 
collection bears this mark. This pitcher and a stoneware jug are the only pieces I have ever 
seen bearing this extremely rare mark.’ This statement is wholly incomprehensible to me. 
I know of no collection of Bennington pottery of any considerable importance or size that 
does not have one or more of the Rockingham pitchers bearing this mark. Certainly, I can 
account for at least thirty of the hexagonal pitchers so marked. 

As for the appearance of this mark on stoneware, I can only say that examples are not at 
all uncommon, let alone ‘extremely rare.’ First and last, 1 must have seen and handled well 
over a hundred fine examples of stoneware marked thus, and I have never experienced the 
slightest difficulty in obtaining them for a nominal sum. The mischief done by such a state- 
ment as the one quoted lies in the fact that it deceives both dealers and collectors, and that 
persons owning examples of stoneware bearing this mark are led by the statement to believe 
that they have something which must be of considerable value because ‘extremely rare.’ 











PART TWO 
THE FENTON POTTERIES 


NOTE 


TuE following pages are devoted to a comprehensive historical and de- 
scriptive account of the various wares made at Bennington by Christo- 
pher Webber Fenton and his associates. The designation which I have 
chosen for this second part of my book, namely, ‘The Fenton Potteries,’ 
is open to criticism in that it ignores the fact that Fenton was always — 
with the exception of a few months — associated with others in the en- 
terprise. In the chapters devoted to the subject, these various associ- 
ates and the several organizations and partnerships formed by them will 
be found to be fully considered. Fenton had so many different partners 
and the changes of name and form of organization of the firm were so 
numerous that it has seemed to me the best, as well as the easiest, course 
to use this simple title for Part Two, leaving to my text the task of need- 
ful amplification. 





PART TWO 
THE FENTON POTTERIES 


I 
FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 
THe Fenton GENEALOGY 

OR a long time all that could be learned of the early history 

of Christopher Webber Fenton was that he was reputed to 

have been born, in 1806, at Dorset, Vermont, though no 

record of the fact had been found; that he was supposed to have 
learned his trade as potter at Dorset, though no record or trace of a 
pottery could be discovered there; that he married Louisa, elder 
daughter of Luman Norton, the Bennington potter, at some unknown 
date; that he came to Bennington at some unspecified time in the 
early part of the nineteenth century, and there engaged in the pottery 
business — perhaps with Captain John Norton, but certainly with his 
son, Luman Norton. Altogether, that was scant information, and 
some of it was quite wrong, for we now know that Fenton never 
engaged in the pottery business with either Captain John Norton or 
his son Luman. | 
I well remember the disappointment with which Albert W. Pitkin 
returned to Bennington on several occasions after days spent in Dorset 
in a fruitless effort to discover something definite concerning Fenton’s 
origin and early history. Long afterward it was my own lot to find 
myself experiencing the same sense of discouragement and disappoint- 
ment over the same task. Even such a simple matter as the date of 
Fenton’s marriage seemed utterly impossible of certain determination. 


104 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Of course, to the student of American ceramic history, interested in 
Fenton’s contribution to the development of an important industry, 
and to the collector, interested in the products of the Bennington 
potteries with which Fenton was associated, the date of the man’s 
marriage, or the question of whether or not he was married at all, is 
really of no consequence. One could write a fairly comprehensive 
account of the Bennington potteries without either knowing or caring 
anything about the ancestors of Fenton, or about the potteries of 
Dorset. So much is obvious. At the same time, I found it impossible 
to rid my mind of the realization that the facts mentioned, and similar 
ones, might, if they were known, illumine the whole history of the 
Bennington enterprise, and that to pass them over for no reason other 
than the unusual difficulty of finding authentic information concerning 
them was a poor way to begin writing a history. If one abandons the 
search for one group of facts, merely because the search is attended by 
unusual difficulties, the temptation to get rid of the next problem in 
the same easy manner will be strong and not easily resisted. 

To find out all that could be found out concerning the origin of 
Fenton, his ancestry, parentage, early life, training, habits, talent, 
character, began as a diversion and speedily became an all-absorbing 
task. I think that I have made inquiries concerning the ancestry of 
hundreds of Fentons and ‘Fintons’ in all parts of the country, and I 
hesitate to say how many musty records I have searched. The result 
is a fuller and more authentic outline of the man and his career than 
has ever before been possible. That much may be claimed for it, 
whatever it may leave to be desired by the reader whose interest in the 
inanimate things described in these pages is accompanied by an equal, 
or perhaps greater, interest in the men responsible for their being. 

In an elaborate, but poorly arranged, genealogical work entitled 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 105 


The Fenton Family of America and Great Britain, published in 1912, 
the author, Thomas Astley Atkins, LL.B., notwithstanding the fact 
that the course of his research brought him to Vermont, made no 
reference to Christopher Webber Fenton, to any of the St. Johnsbury, 
Vermont, Fentons, or to any person bearing that name who appeared 
to be related to these foregoing members of the family. 

Mr. Atkins, however, found that one William Fenton, who was born 
at Urmney, County of Tyrone, Ireland, and whose son was born there 
in 1716, settled in Roxbury, Massachusetts, at some time before 1722, 
in which year he bought land at Rutland, Massachusetts. He seems to 
have written his name ‘F fenton,’ but his father in Ireland signed his 
name ‘John Fenton.’ Mr. Atkins traces the Fentons of Urney, County 
of Tyrone, back to Staffordshire, England, to one James Fenton, a 
General in Queen Elizabeth’s army, who died at his ancestral estate, 
Fenton Hall, City of Fenton, Staffordshire, England, in which place 
his descendants still reside. The grandson of this General James 
Fenton was the poet, Elijah Fenton, who collaborated with Alexander 
Pope in translating Homer’s Odyssey, being responsible for four of the 
books, according to most authorities. This Elijah Fenton published, 
in 1717, a volume of verse, Poems on Several Occasions. He died in 
1732. The only interest which this information possesses comes from 
the fact that, among my notes, I find one, written in 1917, to the effect 
that, according to Dr. Day, C. W. Fenton claimed that he was directly 
descended from a relative of the Fenton who was associated with 
Pope in the translation of the Odyssey. Unfortunately, there is nothing 
to indicate the original source of Dr. Day’s authority. That Christo- 
pher Webber Fenton was of the same family, however, is fairly certain.* 


* It is perhaps worthy of note that one of the few authenticated pieces (indeed, I know of 
no others) of the work of the English potter Twyford is a brown jug inscribed with the name of 
Thomas Fenton, brother of the poet, who is said to have owned Twyford’s pottery at Shelton. 


106 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


There was an earlier genealogy of the American Fentons, compiled 
by William L. Weaver, editor of the Willimantic Journal, and 
published at Willimantic, Connecticut, in 1867. Its title is 4 Gen- 
ealogy of the Fenton Family, Descendants of Robert Fenton, an Early 
Settler of Ancient Windham, Conn. (now Mansfield). In this I find 
that, in 1585, Captain Edward Fenton, of the British Royal Navy, in 
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, visited St. Augustine, Florida, as a 
member of the exploring expedition of the famous Sir Martin Fro- 
bisher. This Captain Edward Fenton was the eldest brother of the 
General James Fenton, of Staffordshire, above referred to. 

More to our purpose is the following: In 1688 one Robert Fenton 
appears in Woburn, Massachusetts, as a taxpayer. His name is on the 
tax list for the years 1688, 1689, 1690, and 1691, and then disappears. 
In 1694, Robert Fenton appears in Windham (later Mansfield), 
Connecticut. This is, probably, the same Robert Fenton who had 
lived at Woburn. He appears to have been a carpenter. That he was 
a man of such qualities as would command the confidence of his fel- 
lows is indicated by his occupancy of responsible offices in the town. 

This Robert Fenton had eight children. The seventh child was a 
son, Ebenezer, born at Windham (Mansfield) in 1710. This Ebenezer 
in turn had fifteen children by two successive wives. His first wife was 
Mehitable Tuttle; his second, Lydia Conant. His oldest son by the 
first wife was Jonathan, born 1740. 

Jonathan Fenton served in the Revolutionary War, enlisting for 
two years from Mansfield, in 1779. He married one Mary Cary, a 
widow, in 1762. Jonathan Fenton had six children, three sons and 


Twyford is best remembered as the man who, posing as an idiot, spied upon, and stole the 
secrets of, John P. Elers and his son — a notable chapter in English ceramic history. The 
fact that so many of the Fentons in America became potters, together with the Staffordshire 
ancestry, suggests a tradition of the craft in the family which helps to account for much. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 107 


three daughters. The second son was Jonathan, born July 18, 1766, 
and the third son — and fourth child — was Richard Webber, born 
September 4, 1771. 

The Jonathan Fenton, son of Jonathan and Mary (Cary) Fenton, 
was a potter and the father of Christopher Webber Fenton. His 
brother, Richard Webber Fenton, also a potter, appears in St. Johns- 
bury, Vermont, in 1804, as one of a committee appointed ‘to Expel 
dogs from the Meeting House on Sundays.’ He was then thirty-three 
years old. 

In the old cemetery at Dorset, I found the grave of Mary Fenton, 
who died in 1832, aged ninety-nine years, showing that the eldest son, 
Jonathan, had taken his mother with him when he migrated to 
Vermont. Her age as given on the tombstone would indicate that, 
although a widow when she married Jonathan Fenton, Sr. in 1762, she 
was, nevertheless, but twenty-nine years of age. Undoubtedly she was 
the ‘Widow Fenton,’ of whom two of the oldest living residents of 
Dorset, both octogenarians, had heard their parents talk about as a 
‘good, lively and cheerful old soul’ and a ‘wonderful old lady.’ 

We can trace the movements of Jonathan Fenton, Jr., father of 
Christopher Webber Fenton, by the records of the birth of his eight 
children. For assistance in obtaining these I am indebted to Miss 
Anna A. Sherlock, Town Clerk of Dorset, Vermont, and to Mr. Her- 
bert Williams Denio, Librarian of the Vermont Historical Society. 
Jonathan Fenton and Rose Lyndia (or Lydia — both forms are given) 
had nine children, as follows: Harriet, born at New Haven, Con- 
necticut, March 16, 1793; Sally, born at Boston, Massachusetts, Sep- 
tember 26, 1794; Melyndia, born at Boston, Massachusetts, January 
11, 1796; Richard L., born at Walpole, New Hampshire, January 22, 
1797; Almira, born at Windsor, Connecticut, November 12, 1799; 


108 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Maria, born at Dorset, Vermont, November 1, 1801; Eliza, born at 
Dorset, Vermont, April 12, 1803; Clarecy, born at Dorset, Vermont, 
August 27, 1804; Christopher Webber, born at Dorset, Vermont, Janu- 
ary 30, 1806. 

It is evident that Jonathan Fenton, for some years of his early mar- 
ried life, was much given to wandering from town to town. This, in 
all probability, was due to the exigencies of his employment, and to 
the precarious condition of many of the potteries that sprang up in all 
parts of New England. Be that as it may, he came to Dorset from 
Windsor, Connecticut, some time between November, 1799, and No- 
vember, 1801. We can narrow that a little more closely: The United 
States Census for Vermont, taken in 1800 — of which there is a photo- 
stat copy in the library of the Vermont Historical Society — shows 
that there was no head of a family named Fenton in Dorset at the time 
of the census. Fenton and his family, therefore, must have settled in 
the village quite late in 1800 or else prior to November, 1801. It may 
be added that the same census indicates that there was no family by 
the name of Fenton in St. Johnsbury in 1800; General R. W. Fenton, 
brother of Jonathan, must therefore have come thither at some time 
between 1800 and 1804, when he was appointed to the ‘Dog Com- 
mittee.’ 


CHRISTOPHER WEBBER FENTON 
Now we know all that is necessary or important concerning the an- 
cestry and parentage of Christopher Webber Fenton. He was the 
youngest of nine children, six of whom were girls. He was born at 
Dorset, Vermont, January 30, 1806. His father was a potter, and so 
was his father’s brother. There was a Jacob Fenton, a potter, in New 
Haven in 1800 who in 1801 moved to Burlington, New York, and es- 


FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 109 


tablished a pottery there. We may safely conclude that Christopher 
Webber Fenton belonged to what we may term an old potter family, 
and, judging by his career and his work, that he possessed a liking and 
an appetite for the trade. His father we know to have been a man of 
small fortune, a simple craftsman, who established and for some years 
operated a small pottery at East Dorset, where he made red earthen- 
ware and stoneware, the simple, homely pottery of which common do- 
mestic utensils were fashioned, differing in no notable particular from 
similar ware made at many other places in New England. That he 
was a good potter is evidenced by the excellent specimens of his work 
that have survived, and bear his mark. The son, Richard L.* Fenton, 
Christopher’s brother, who acquired a half interest in the pottery in 
1826, was likewise a good potter, as the pieces bearing his name prove. 
The family was of good Anglo-American stock, as the brief genealogi- 
cal sketch above given shows. 


FENTON’s CHARACTER AND ATTAINMENTS 

What education Christopher Webber Fenton received I have not 
been able to ascertain. There is no evidence that he ever enjoyed the 
advantage of anything better than the instruction supplied by the 
district schools of his day. The old potters with whom I have dis- 
cussed his character and attainments have invariably represented him 
as a man of just a little more education than the average potter, but 
inferior in that respect to some. 

A composite of all their recollections would make a picture some- 
thing like this: A man of rather more education than the average me- 


+ I have always understood that the ‘L’ stood for ‘Leander’ — the name of his cousin, 
Leander Fenton, of St. Johnsbury, who was also a potter, and worked for some time at 
Bennington with his cousin. Mrs. Ruth Howe Wood, a descendant, says, however, that 
the initial stood for ‘Lucas.’ (See Antiques, vol. vil, No. 5, p. 152.) 


T See p. 51. 


IIo THE FENTON POTTERIES 


chanic of his day, in no wise noted for exceptional learning or intel- 
lectual gifts; not much given to reading; rather good at figures, and 
with something of a natural talent for drawing, his readiness at mak- 
ing pencil sketches of designs and patterns being well remembered; a 
Whig in politics and fond of talking about politics, but with insuffi- 
cient command of his temper, being easily angered in discussion; 
rather uncertain in his relations with men, changing from extreme 
affability and good-fellowship to sullen aloofness without apparent 
reason or cause; restless in manner, constantly altering plans and 
orders and introducing changes in the arrangements of the factory; 
fastidious in his dress; careful and precise in his speech; exceedingly 
formal in his manners, but given to boasting; addicted to constant 
dram-drinking, intensified by periodic ‘sprees’ followed by mental 
depression and despondency. 

Such a composite of the recollections of men who knew Christo- 
pher Webber Fenton is not a complete portrait of the man, and it 
would be wrong to regard it as such. It is probable that a contempo- 
rary sketch, written by one who knew the man intimately, would be so 
different as to make my portrait at second hand appear as a mere 
caricature. Moreover, we must remember that this portrait is drawn 
from the last few years of Fenton’s life, not one of the recollections 
upon which it is based going further back than 1855. 

He learned his trade as a potter at the little pottery at East Dorset, 
owned and operated by his father and then by his father and elder 
brother in partnership. As pointed out elsewhere in this study, the 
opportunities which existed here for learning anything of the higher 
forms of ceramic manufacture were exceedingly limited. However 
interested in his craft the apprentice may have been, and however 
skilled as a workman, he could not have acquired at the East Dorset 


FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 111 


pottery any practical experience in the finer branches of the potter’s 
art. 


MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN 

He was married to Louisa Norton, daughter of Luman Norton, at 
Bennington, October 29, 1832. It seems almost incredible, but years 
of steady and persistent searching were required to ascertain that 
date. Neither in the records of the Norton family nor in any of the 
accessible local church records could the date be found. A careful 
search of the files of the local newspapers of the period did not disclose 
it. Fenton’s granddaughter, Mrs. Ralph White, of North Benning- 
ton, did not know it; neither did her father, Fenton’s son-in-law, Mr. 
Henry D. Fillmore, of Bennington. It was found at last, among the 
unpublished vital records of the State, on file at Montpelier, by Mr. 
Herbert Williams Denio, Librarian of the Vermont Historical Society. 
Almost simultaneously, in the diary of our old friend Hiram Harwood, 
for the year 1832, I came across the following entry: 


Married this morning by the Revd E. H. Hooker, Mr. Fenton, 
Merchant, of Dorset to Miss Louisa eldest daughter of Judge L. Norton of 
this town. The young couple started immediately for N. Y. City — had the 
misfortune to wreck their carriage in the Parson’s Hollow — proceeded after- 
wards in the judge’s waggon. — Monday, October 29, 1832.* 





Of this marriage four children were born, two sons and two daugh- 
ters. The eldest daughter, Fanny, became the wife of Calvin Park. 
Frank, the second child, in his young manhood went west, worked as a 
potter in Peoria, Illinois, served in the Civil War, and, I believe, died 
in Chicago, leaving a small family. Augusta, the third child, died of 
smallpox, at Bennington, February 22, 1857. She was then in her 
sixteenth year. Fenton, it appears, contracted the disease in New 


* Pitkin, op. cit., p. 19, gives the date of the marriage as ‘about 1828.’ 


112 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


York City, but recovered from it. The infection was communicated 
from father to child, with fatal results. Henry, the youngest child, 
died, I believe, in a western hospital for the insane. 


THE BEGINNING OF THE FENTON BUSINESS 

All that is known concerning the brief co-partnership that existed 
between Fenton and his brother-in-law, Julius Norton, has been set 
forth in an earlier chapter in connection with the history of the Norton 
Potteries, and need not here be repeated. That partnership was dis- 
solved June 25,1847. Fenton thereupon began business upon his own 
account, devoting himself to the manufacture of Common White and 
Common Yellow and Rockingham wares as the foundation of the busi- 
ness, with porcelain as a side line still largely experimental in char- 
acter. 

If ever the terms of the dissolution of the partnership between Nor- 
ton and Fenton were recorded in any formal instrument, certainly no 
trace of such a document has been found. But what appears to have 
occurred is this: By mutual agreement Fenton took over the lines of 
manufacture enumerated above, which had previously been carried 
on in the north wing of the factory, in a relatively small space. Be- 
cause of the quantity of materials on hand, the transfer of which would 
have been quite expensive, Fenton continued the work in the north 
wing until the materials were exhausted. Meanwhile he paid rent to 
Julius Norton for the privilege. This arrangement continued to No- 
vember, when the first public announcement of the dissolution was 
made, the occasion for it being Fenton’s removal to a neighboring 
building owned by Alanson P. Lyman, with whom he was already in 
partnership in another enterprise — the powder factory referred to in 


an earlier chapter. 


FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 113 


ASSOCIATION WITH Henry D. HAL 

While he was doing business upon his own account in the north wing 
of the Norton Pottery, Fenton secured the financial support of Henry 
D. Hall, son of the famous Governor and historian of the State, Hiland 
Hall. This arrangement accounts for the legend perpetuated by prac- 
tically every writer who has dealt with the subject, that, when Julius 
Norton and Christopher Webber Fenton could not persuade their 
senior partner, Judge Luman Norton, to go into the manufacture of ‘a 
more decorative line of ware,’ they leased the north wing of the pottery 
and, taking Henry D. Hall into partnership with them, started to make: 
Parian Ware.* Henry D. Hall was never in partnership with Julius 
Norton. He did, however, become the ‘silent partner’ of Fenton at 
the time stated. There was no public announcement of the partner- 
ship. The firm name was Fenton, Hall & Co., but it seems only to have 
been used where legal forms required it. So far as is known, it never 
appeared upon any of the company’s wares. Mr. Hall withdrew from 
the firm and terminated his arrangement with it after a few months. 

That the foregoing is an accurate account of the relations of Fenton 
and Hall there can be no sensible doubt. Mr. Hall’s daughter, the late 
Mrs. H. T. Cushman, of North Bennington, remembered hearing her 
father say many times that he was Fenton’s partner for a few months, 
and that the legal name of the firm was Fenton, Hall & Co. Mr. 
Henry D. Hall wrote with his own hand, at the request of the editor 


* Barber, in his well-known book, The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States, p. 165, 
also states that Messrs. C. W. Fenton, Julius Norton, and Henry D. Hall were in partnership. 
The paragraph in which this is stated is a most extraordinary jumble of misinformation. 
It says: ‘Christopher Webber Fenton, Henry D. Hall, and Julius Norton commenced making 
yellow, white, and Rockingham wares at Bennington, Vermont, about the year 1846, in the 
north wing of the old stoneware shop (which had been erected in 1793 by the Norton family), ’ 
operated by Messrs. Norton and Fenton. The new firm brought from England one John 
Harrison, who did their first modeling. Mr. Hall did not long remain in the company and after 
he and Mr. Norton withdrew, the style was changed to Lyman & Fenton, by the admission 
to the firm of Mr. Alanson Potter Lyman... and shortly after to Lyman, Fenton & Park.’ 


114 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


of the Bennington Banner, a short sketch of his life, which was pub- 
lished in that paper. In that sketch he gave the facts as they are here 
given. Finally, in the obituary of Mr. Hall, which was written by his 
son-in-law, Mr. Henry T. Cushman, the same account is given. Mr. 
Cushman observes, in the obituary notice referred to, ‘In 1846 a 
partnership was formed under the name of Fenton, Hall & Company.’ 
Of course, the date is wrongly given here. It should be 1847, instead of 
1846. But the main fact, the partnership of Henry D. Hall with 
Christopher Webber Fenton, is established beyond question. 


FEentTon’s Works, BENNINGTON, VERMONT, 1847-1848 

For several months after the withdrawal of Henry D. Hall, Fen- 
ton was without a partner. It is not until September, 1848, that there 
is any evidence of his having found new partners for his pottery busi- 
ness. The reason for emphasis upon the closing words of the last sen- 
tence will presently be manifest. For the moment our sole concern is 
with the fact that the wares made by Fenton during the time when 
Hall was his silent partner, and after the withdrawal of the latter 
until the end of 1848, were marked Fenton’s Works, Bennington, Ver- 
mont, the words being impressed in a raised ornamental panel. This 
mark, which was used from June, 1847, to the close of the following 
year — not ‘about 1845,’ as Pitkin asserts — has been found upon 
Rockingham Ware and upon quite a variety of porcelain pitchers. 
Pitkin says of this mark, ‘It is found on Rockingham ware, Parian, 
and pottery of a yellow body.’ In a subsequent paragraph he states 
that this mark is to be found upon a Parian pitcher in the Morgan 
Memorial at Hartford, Connecticut, upon an octagonal water-cooler in 
Rockingham, having ‘a yellow body mottled in light brown.’ * 


# Pitkin, op. cit., p. 24. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 115 


If Pitkin had lived to complete his book and supervise its publica- 
tion, he would not have permitted such confusion to stand uncor- 
rected. It can only perplex the reader to be told that the mark we are 
considering is to be found on ‘Rockingham . .. and pottery of a yellow 
body,’ when, as the context shows, the Rockingham water-cooler upon 
which the mark is found is ‘of yellow body,’ which, indeed, is true of 
virtually all Bennington Rockingham. I have a similar water-cooler in 
my own collection bearing this mark. To the average reader, it is to be 
feared, the passage quoted may convey the idea that the mark we are 
considering was used on the Yellow Ware. That, however, is not the 
case.* 

The same mark is often found upon white porcelain pitchers, 
which are frequently, but erroneously, classified as ‘Parian.’ A case 
in point is the glazed white porcelain pitcher, No. 7 in Williamson’s 
catalogue of the Pitkin Collection. To call such ware ‘Parian’ is to 
destroy the basis of intelligent classification. Leaving to a subse- 
quent chapter the important task of defining Parian and indicating 
wherein it must be’ sharply differentiated from other types of por- 
celain, it is sufficient to state here that nearly all of the examples of 
white porcelain marked with the raised panel impressed with the words 
Fenton’s Works, Bennington, Vermont, are not Parian, but ordinary 
hard porcelain. 

Yet it would be incorrect to state that no Parian was made by Fen- 
ton at this time, or marked in the manner described. A small syrup 
pitcher, copied from a well-known Alcock design, and known to col- 
lectors as the Bird Nest pitcher, is most often found in what can hardly 
be classified as anything other than Parian. The nature of the design 


* Tt is unfortunate that the classification of Bennington wares in Pitkin’s book, and in the 
collection bearing his name at the Morgan Memorial, Hartford Atheneum, is extremely 
faulty and confusing. 


116 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


itself, in this instance, is wholly unsuited to reproduction in marble, 
or in a substance intended to imitate that material. This tends to 
weaken the jug’s resemblance to marble. Even the best specimens 
cannot be said successfully to effect the illusion which Parian should 
achieve. Far more successful is the little-known pitcher bearing the 
same mark, decorated with relief figures of mounted knights in con- 
flict on one side, and of a lover and his lady upon the other. This de- 
sign, originally made in England by Alcock, was known as Love and 
War. Inthe quality of the workmanship and of the material itself the 
pitcher is one of the finest examples ever made at the Bennington pot- 
teries, at any time. Although its mark indicates that it was produced 
during the experimental period, its excellence was rarely equaled at 
any time thereafter. It is an exquisite thing, and closely approxi- 
mates the ideal Parian standard. (Plate XXI.)* 


FENTON As Dry-Goops MERCHANT 

In the early spring of 1848, Fenton somehow acquired a new inter- 
est and entered into a new partnership. This did not at first appear 
to be connected with the pottery business, and herein lies the explana- 
tion of the statement made earlier in this chapter, that it was not until 
September, 1848, that Fenton ‘found new partners for his pottery 
business. He was already in business as a potter upon his own ac- 
count, while he was, at the same time, in the powder manufacturing 
business with A. P. Lyman as a member of the firm of Lyman, Fenton 
& Co. On April 19, 1848, he appeared in still another rdle. On that 
date the Vermont Gazette, published in the lower village, carried the 
advertisement shown at the top of page 117. 


* Pitchers of this design, bearing the same mark, and obviously made from the same mould, 
but of a heavy brownish-yellow clay, quite highly glazed, are among the least attractive of all 
Fenton’s works. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 117 


This advertisement of the firm of Lyman, Fenton & Park, dealers in 


dry goods, was neither preceded nor accompanied by any formal an- 


APRIL 17, 1848 
SPRING AND SUMMER GOODS 


The subscribers this day received their Spring and Summer 
Goods, comprising a much larger assortment than has usually 
been brought into this part of the country. 


They intend to offer goods as cheap as they can be had at any 
other store, and cheaper if they can afford it. 
Ladies and Gentlemen are respectfully invited to call and 
examine their goods and prices. 
LYMAN, FENTON & PARK 





nouncement of a new partnership entered into by Fenton. It appears 
simply as an entirely new enterprise. The most careful search of the 
files of the contemporary local newspapers, and of all other known 


local records, has failed to reveal anything concerning this partnership 





SPRING AND SUMMER 
GOODS 


Which cannot be beat in this town, either in quantity, 
quality, or prices. 
Ladies and Gentlemen are respectfully invited to give them a 


call, and see. 
LYMAN, FENTON & PARK 


East Bennington, April 17, 1848. 


other than appears upon the surface — that Fenton, either as an in- 
dividual or as a member of the firm of Lyman & Fenton, powder 
manufacturers, had become associated with the dry-goods business. 


118 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


It may or may not be significant that, about four weeks before the ap- 
pearance of this advertisement in the Vermont Gazette, on April 19, 
1848, the regular weekly advertisement of ‘C. W. Fenton, Manu- 
facturer,’ ceased to appear, the last insertion being on March 15, 1848. 
The State Banner, in its issue of April 24, 1848, published a somewhat 
different advertisement of the dry-goods firm of Lyman, Fenton & 
Park, as given at the bottom of page 117. 


Catvin ParK A PARTNER 

I make no pretense of explaining this strangely complicated chap- 
ter in the history of Christopher Webber Fenton and his work as a 
potter here in Bennington. In so far as I am aware, there is not a 
scrap of authentic history, or even of credible local tradition, which 
can be cited to throw any light upon it. The record must stand as it 
is, valuable for the information it imparts concerning the precarious 
existence of Fenton’s cherished enterprise. It is evident that he was 
finding it difficult to finance his pottery; though just how that situa- 
tion would be remedied by his joining a dry-goods firm is not readily 
manifest. In some manner, however, the move eventually brought 
into the pottery business Mr. Calvin Park, a local business man, who 
subsequently — much later — became Fenton’s son-in-law. 

Once more we find our way with the aid of the files of the contem- 
porary local newspapers. On October 5, 1848, the Vermont Gazette — 
the paper of that name published in the lower village — contained an 
account of the Exhibition of the Bennington County Agricultural So- 
ciety, which had been held at Shaftsbury during the preceding week. 
In the accompanying description of the exhibits appears the following: 


Our neighbors, Lyman, Fenton & Park, presented specimens of their 
Crockery, which elicited much remark for its surpassing beauty and excel- 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 119 


lence. A large amount was sold to visitors. The manufactures of this 
Company have obtained a reputation in our principal cities as not only the 
best manufactured in this country, but superior to any imported. 

In the list of prizes awarded, we find that one prize of fifty cents was 
awarded to the firm of Lyman, Fenton & Park, for an exhibit of door 
knobs, and another of two dollars for an ‘exhibit of Crockery.’ The 
same list was published in the uptown Vermont Gazette, October 3, 
1848. It should be said, perhaps, that these exceedingly modest pre- 
miums were up to the general average for the whole Exhibition, and 
that the exhibits of Messrs. Lyman, Fenton & Park were the only ones 
in their respective classes. So far as I have been able to discover, this 
account of the Exhibition of the Bennington County Agricultural 
Society for 1848 constitutes the first public mention of the connection 
of the firm of Lyman, Fenton & Park with the pottery business. Some 
weeks later, in its issue of November 22, 1848, the same paper pub- 
lished for the first time the advertisement of this firm as pottery man- 
ufacturers. The advertisement appeared among the ‘ Business Cards,’ 
immediately below that of Julius Norton, and read as follows: 


LYMAN, FENTON & PARK 


Manufacturers of Every Description of 
Rockingham, White Flint and White Earthen 


CROCKERY WARE 


East Bennington, Vt. 





It is worthy of note, in passing, that neither in the account of the 
Exhibition of Shaftsbury, nor in this or any other known advertise- 
ment, is there any mention of Parian Ware. This is certainly a re- 
markable fact. Fenton was too fond of publicity, I believe, to have 


120 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


missed the chance to persuade the local press to take notice of the fact 
that the new Statuary Ware, which had attracted so much attention, 
was being successfully made by him. It can hardly be doubted that 
some of the ware would have been displayed at the Exhibition, or that 
it would have been the subject of much local comment, if it was then 
being manufactured upon any considerable scale. At the same time 
the fact remains that many porcelain pitchers, including the best 
examples of Parian, bear the mark that was in use at this time. We 
are forced to believe that the manufacture of porcelain in general, and 
of Parian porcelain in particular, was still wholly experimental and 
entirely subordinate to the manufacture of the commoner types of 
ware. The fact that some of the porcelain pitchers bearing the mark 
Fenton’s Works are found in such large numbers does not, of necessity, 
invalidate this theory. It is quite likely that the moulds made during 
this experimental period were continued in use for years afterward. 
It is also worthy of note that, from the date of the first appearance of 
the advertisement of Lyman, Fenton & Park as manufacturers of 
pottery products, the advertisement of dry goods by the same firm 
disappears. In the meantime, the firm of Lyman & Fenton, manu- 
facturers of gun and blasting powder, maintain their separate identity 
and advertise regularly in the local newspapers. 


CaLvIn Park WITHDRAWS 
Calvin Park withdrew from the concern on or about November 1, 
1849. There is no known record of the dissolution of the firm. It ap- 
pears that Park simply withdrew, leaving the business to the other 
two members, A. P. Lyman and C. W. Fenton. In the uptown Ver- 
mont Gazette, Thursday, September 27, 1849, appeared the advertise- 
ment of Lyman, Fenton & Park, as manufacturers of pottery products. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 121 


The advertisement was identical with that published regularly during 
the year by the rival paper of the same name, and already quoted in 
full. In the issue of the same uptown paper for October 11, 1849, ap- 
peared a list of the premiums awarded at the annual Exhibition of the 
Bennington County Agricultural Society for that year, held at Ben- 
nington, from which it appears that the firm of Lyman, Fenton & 
Park had entered an ‘exhibit of six pieces of Crockery,’ and had been 
awarded the first premium — $1.50. Shortly after that Park ceased to 
be connected with the firm, and the other two members sometimes 
styled themselves Lyman & Fenton and sometimes, Lyman, Fen- 
ton & Co. 


FENTON’s PATENT Process 

It was at this time that Fenton secured the patent for his process 
of using metallic colors in connection with flint glaze. This patent, 
which was issued November 27, 1849, is the one referred to in the well- 
known elliptical mark found on so much of the Bennington ware, im- 
pressed into the ware and bearing the words Fenton’s Enamel Patented 
1849, in the center and surrounded by the name Lyman, Fenton & Co., 
Bennington, Vt. As Pitkin rightly pointed out, what Fenton secured 
a patent for was not flint glaze itself, nor the manner of applying it. 
The use of this glaze had been usual with most of the English potters 
for many years; it was the common property of the trade. In this 
country it had been used with success for a number of years. Neither 
was it the use of color in connection with flint glaze — which 1s cor- 
rectly termed ‘Flint Enamel’ — that was covered by Fenton’s patent. 
That had been used with success by other American potters, to say 
nothing of the great potters of England and Continental Europe. 
Palissy used metallic oxides with his glaze, achieving wonderful effects. 


122 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Still earlier, the unknown potters of Beauvaisie, at Lachapelle des 
Pots, used metallic oxides with glazes with marked success. As far 
back as the Sixth Dynasty (B.c. 3703) the Chinese used enamels made 
from oxides of tin and copper in the glazing of sepulchral figures.* The 
ancient Egyptians, and likewise the Assyrians, used siliceous glaze to- 
gether with metallic oxide enamels, the colors used being blue, black, 
yellow, and red.f Inthe work of Whieldon, Dwight, and other Stafford- 
shire potters of eminence, such metallic oxides as copper green, anti- 
mony, manganese, and zaffre were successfully used. Fenton’s famous 
patent covered simply the manner of applying the metallic colors. In 
a subsequent chapter we shall discuss this subject more fully. It is 
mentioned here because the date of this patent coincided with the 
period under consideration, and, even though it involves some repeti- 
tion, the belief that Christopher Webber Fenton ‘patented Flint 
Enamel,’ which persists in spite of all statements to the contrary, 
needs to be corrected. 


Tue Factory oF 1850 

Early in the summer of 1850 the firm of Lyman, Fenton & Co. began 
the erection of a new factory upon the site now occupied by the Ben- 
nington Graded School. They had secured some new capital for the 
enterprise, and the new buildings and kilns embodied numerous im- 
provements which Fenton and Decius W. Clark had devised, as well as 
many others which were copied from other potteries. The buildings 
were of wood, and there were three large double kilns. The cost of the 
undertaking is said to have been about fifteen thousand dollars. While 
the new plant was being constructed, work was carried on in the old 


* See Samuel Birch, History of Ancient Pottery, for this. 
} dem. See also Sir Gardiner Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 123 


factory near by, and, even after the new plant was finished and in oper- 
ation, the use of the old one was continued for a year or so. 

The new establishment was completed by the beginning of No- 
vember, 1850. Frank B. Norton, brother of Edward Norton, who 
later was associated with Frederick Hancock in the well-known pot- 
tery firm of Norton & Hancock, of Worcester, Massachusetts, wrote in 
his diary, under date of November 15, 1850: ‘Lyman & Fenton drew 
their first kiln of ware today in their new shop. Very good for the 
first.” On the following day, November 16, 1850, the State Banner pub- 
lished the following article by an anonymous writer using the pseu- 
donym ‘A Visitor’: 


I visited while in your place the greatest ‘curiosity shop’ I ever witnessed, 
the Pottery Works of Messrs. Lyman & Fenton; and by the politeness of 
the proprietors was permitted to see all parts of the establishment. I could 
but remark the open and manly frankness of the proprietors in answer to 
questions, as we were going about the premises, it contrasting so much with 
the often repeated conduct of foreign manufacturers in reference to persons 
visiting their shops for information on the subject or art of Pottery. — The 
establishment is new, large and commodious, covering, I should judge, 
nearly an acre of ground, and presenting a grand appearance, with its high 
towering chimneys, or craters to the kilns, smoking and sending forth fire 
like so many volcanoes. A part of the business is now being carried on in the 
old establishment, as it is necessary to occupy all their apartments in order 
to fulfil their contracts. — In my humble estimation the Pottery business of 
itself will be sufficient to make your place one of the first in the country. 

The new building and machinery cannot, I think, have cost less than from 
12 to 15 thousand dollars, which, with the amount paid weekly to the great 
number of hands employed, induces me to consider the launching out of 
these proprietors in this business one of the great wonders of the age. 


In the next issue of the same paper, November 23, 1850, the same 
anonymous writer gave a further description of the new establishment, 
which is interesting as a reflection of contemporary opinion and as an 
expression of the high hopes which the enterprise engendered: 


124 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


I am aware that time will not permit me to say all that might be said of 
the extensive works of Messrs. Lyman & Fenton, in your place; and I am 
equally persuaded that the manner in which I should say it, would not be 
extremely interesting to your readers, but having in a previous letter said 
something of it, shall take the liberty to say on. 

The greater proportion of the material from which the ware is made, I 
understand, is found near the establishment, which is a great advantage as 
respects the comparative profit to be realized in the vicinity where the goods 
are manufactured. 

The number of different processes which the material has to undergo, and 
the great number of hands it passes through in its journeyings from the 
raw state, until it comes forth a ‘perfect work of art,’ would seem to the 
stranger to place a barrier in the way as to expense, which could not be over- 
come by the /ength of purse which, generally speaking, throughout the com- 
munity (judging from my own experience) is not uncomfortably long. 
Articles too numerous to name of kind and form both for ornament and 
luxury as well as for every day use and convenience in the domestic circle, 
are produced with a beautiful polish. The enamel reflects a great variety of 
the richest hues, and defies the operation and action of fire or acids of any 
kind. 

When this ware is known throughout the country, a limited supply only, 
can hinder every family from participating in the pleasures and comforts 
which the possession of it affords. 

Not far from these works is the Stone Ware Factory of Mr. Julius Norton, 
a descendant of a family of the same name, who have carried on the business 
in Bennington for upwards of 80 years. It is the largest establishment of the 
kind in the Union; and it is conceded on all hands, I believe, that he sends 
to all parts of New England and New York, the best quality and best 
manufactured ware in the country. The building is of brick with slated roof, 
about one hundred feet square, aside from the sheds and kilns adjoining. 
Bennington, it would seem, bids fair to become the great central position 
for the manufacture of different kinds of Pottery Ware in the United States. 


In March, 1851, the retailing of their products was started by 
Messrs. Lyman & Fenton. Prior to that time all their wares had been 
produced under contract for a wholesale house, and by the terms of 
the contract the manufacturers were prohibited from selling to other 
dealers, or to the retail trade. While positive proof is lacking, there is 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 125 


every reason to believe that the wholesale dealer with whom this con- 
tract was made was Oliver A. Gager, one of the best known men in the 
china and earthenware trade. It is known that he made a considerable 
investment in the firm at or near this time, and for some years after- 
ward he was one of the principal financial backers of the enterprise. 
The State Banner, in its issue of March 8, 1851, contained the following 
advertisement: 


FLINT ENAMEL 
WARE 


The undersigned, manufacturers of FEnton’s PATENT FLINT 
Enamec Ware have heretofore sold their ware under a contract 


and have not felt at liberty to sell at their pottery. Having 
been discharged from this contract, they now give notice that 


they are ready to fill all orders on the shortest notice. 

They have on hand a considerable quantity of second 
quality Ware, as good for use as the first, but not suitable for 
market, which they will retail at the Pottery at a low price. 

LYMAN & FENTON 


Bennington, March 5, 1851. 





Many collectors have wondered why specimens of Bennington 
wares found in and near Bennington are so often defective, showing 
marked imperfections in the making — warped bases, sagged and mis- 
shapen forms, poor surfaces which show cracks, specks, and bubbles 
due to over-firing, and so on. The above advertisement offers a suffi- 
cient explanation. The wares which were rejected by the inspectors 
employed for the purpose, as being below the standard and unsuitable 
for the market, were sold as ‘seconds’ at the pottery at very low prices. 
Employees were also permitted to take these ‘seconds’ away, more or 

less freely. The natural result was that people in the neighborhood 


126 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


who wanted pitchers or other articles were in the habit of going to the 
pottery and buying the marred pieces. A pitcher which had an un- 
glazed and rough spot, due to accidental contact with the side of the 
seggar when the gloss kiln was fired, could be bought for five or ten 
cents, and would serve practical purposes as well as a perfect one at 
several times the price. I know of several small collections in and near 
Bennington, with not a single perfect specimen among them. The col- 
lector who buys his specimens in the neighborhood of Bennington, 
therefore, should be on guard against ‘seconds.’ One is far more likely 
to find good specimens in and around Boston. 

Although such an enormous quantity of the ware produced bore the 
trade-mark of Lyman, Fenton & Co., that firm did not exist very long. 
We do not know exactly when Lyman left the firm, but it is certain 
that by the end of 1852 he was out of it, and Oliver A. Gager was to a 
large extent managing the finances of the enterprise. As we note his 
departure from the scene of this history, a brief outline of Lyman’s 
career seems appropriate: 


ALANSON PoTTER LyMAN 
Alanson Potter Lyman was a native of Woodford, Vermont, the 
_ town adjoining Bennington. He was born December 4, 1806, and was, 
therefore, about ten months younger than Christopher Webber Fen- 
ton. His education was virtually all obtained in the common school 
and the village Academy in the lower village at Bennington. As a 
young man, he taught in the Academy for a short time. He read law 
and was admitted to the bar and to practice in the County Courts in 
1832, and three years later was admitted to practice in the Supreme 
Court. In 1837 he went to Gardiner, Maine, where he engaged in the 


pottery business, manufacturing stoneware. He had no practical 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 127 


knowledge of the business, however, and maintained a purely financial 
relation to it. He returned to Bennington late in 1841 and soon made 
the acquaintance of Fenton. How the two drifted into business associ- 
ation we have already seen. They had much in common: they were 
both men of uncommon energy; they were both strong Whigs; they 
were both full of ambition, and they were visionaries who believed that 
each latest enterprise must surely make them rich; finally, both were 
too fond of the convivial glass and paid heavily for their weakness in 
that respect. 

From the many industrial and commercial enterprises with which he 
was associated during his life, it would be natural to infer that Lyman 
was less a lawyer than an entrepreneur. Such an inference would, 
however, be wholly wrong. He was one of the most brilliant lawyers in 
southern Vermont, and ranked high in his profession. An excellent 
speaker, he was unusually successful as a pleader, and many stories 
are still told of his triumphs in jury cases. For some time he was in 
partnership with Hiland Hall, who later became Governor of Ver- 
mont. At one time he was State’s Attorney for Bennington County; 
at another, United States Registrar under the Federal Bankruptcy 
Law. In 1850 he was a candidate for Congress and was defeated 
by a small margin of votes. He died in 1883, in his seventy-seventh 


year. 


OLivER A. GAGER 
Oliver A. Gager, who was a dominant figure in the enterprise from 
1852 onward, was a native of Massachusetts, and, in early life, carried 
on business in Fall River. Removing to New York City, he became 
the head of one of the best-known firms in the china trade, O. A. Gager 
& Co., whose establishment was on Barclay Street. In the early sev- 


128 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


enties he succeeded to the business of the well-known Charles Field 
Haviland, which placed him at the summit of the trade in this country. 
Mr. Gager was a man of considerable wealth, with large interests in 
western gold and silver mines. He was treasurer of the Hudson River 
Tunnel Company. For many years a resident of Brooklyn, he was an 
active member of Plymouth Church and associated with many phil- 
anthropic undertakings. He had a profound faith in the Bennington 
enterprise and spent a great deal of his time in the Vermont village. 
Few now remain who can remember him personally, but the memory 
bequeathed by an older generation still lingers in the tradition of a 
man of sterling character, courtly yet benign manner, and unfailing 
cheerfulness. He died in 1889 at the age of sixty-four. 

Between the time when Lyman’s association with the firm as one of 
its principals ceased — toward the latter part of 1852 — and the re- 
organization of the business and the adoption, in 1853, of the name 
- United States Pottery Company, there appears to have been an inter- 
val during which Gager took matters into his personal control and the 
name O. A. Gager & Co. was used. In the official Catalogue of the New 
York Exhibition of 1853, I find that, when the entries were made, some 
months in advance of the opening of the Exhibition, that of Benniag- 
ton ware was made by ‘O. A. Gager & Co., manu. Bennington, Ver- 
mont.’ There are but seven entries in the American section, porcelain 
and other ceramics, the first one being of Bennington ware. It reads as 
follows: ‘1. Fenton’s patent flint enamelled ware. —O. A. Gager 
& Co., manu. Bennington, Vermont.’ As local accounts of the firm 
were charged to and paid by O. A. Gager & Co. at this time, there 
seems to be no room for reasonable doubt upon this point. By the 
time the New York Exhibition was opened, however, the name 
United States Pottery Company had been adopted. This is clearly 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 129 


shown by the following facts: The Bennington exhibit bore signs with 
that name printed upon them; the reports of the Exhibition, without 
a single exception that I have been able to find, refer to the exhibit 
of the United States Pottery Company; some of the pieces of por- 


celain exhibited were so marked. 


BENNINGTON WARE AT THE NEw York EXHIBIT 

It would seem, from the manner in which the entry was made, that 
the original intention was to exhibit only the Flint Enamelled Ware of 
the company. It may well be that both Gager and Fenton hesitated 
to exhibit their Parian and other porcelains, knowing well as they did 
the high standards of some of the British and French firms, with which 
they would seem to be challenging comparison. Gager knew even 
better than Fenton what the comparison meant. He knew the master- 
pieces in Parian produced by Copeland, Minton, and other English 
firms, compared with which the best of the Bennington Parian was 
crude and poor. But whatever the reasons, the firm entered only Flint 
Enamelled Ware, and no porcelains of any kind. The fact that the ex- 
hibit displayed other wares was passed over in most of the newspaper 
accounts, which, being based upon the official Catalogue, described the 
entire exhibit of the firm as Flint Enamelled Ware. More careful com- 
mentators upon the exhibits have been puzzled by the entry in the 
official Catalogue in connection with the exhibit itself. Silliman and 
Goodrich, for example, writing about the Parian exhibited by the firm, 
say, ‘We do not know why it should be styled “patent flint enamelled 
ware,” as from the specimens of feldspar, white quartz, and clay, 
shown as the raw materials of its manufacture, it is obviously a hard 
porcelain.’ * | 


* Silliman and Goodrich, op. cit., p. 188. 


130 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


The center of the firm’s exhibit, its magnum opus, was the large 
monumental piece referred to in a previous chapter, which for many 
years past has stood upon the porch in front of the house on Pleasant 
Street, Bennington, in which Fenton lived for so long. It was modeled 
by Daniel Greatbach, one of the foremost modelers in America at the 
time, who had come to Bennington in 1852. The design itself is said 
to have been the work of Fenton, assisted by Decius W. Clark. It is, 
of course, an interesting piece of work, but it has no artistic merit what- 
ever. The design lacks originality, distinctiveness, and, above all, 
unity. The lack of unity is emphasized by the arbitrary and sharp di- 
vision of the dissimilar parts. The Parian bust of Fenton* is good in 
itself, being well modeled and executed with considerable skill. It is so 
placed, however, as to convey the impression of a man’s head in a sort 
of cage. As a matter of fact, it does not belong in its present position. 
It was not intended to be in any way associated with the large monu- 
‘ ment. Neither was the Parian statuette on top, representing a mother 
handing a Bible.to her child. This statuette, which is so much better 
in its execution than in its modeling, has, like the bust of Fenton, been 
added to the large creation without any warrant. Properly to judge 
the ‘monument,’ as it is called, both these figures should be eliminated. 
It should also be remembered that the piece was originally designed 
for use as a stove. Half a dozen others were made, one at least having 
been smashed to bits in the Fenton cellar. When we view it as a 
stove, our judgment is likely to be more lenient. The addition of the 
Parian figures, giving it a pretentiousness not originally intended, has 
brought a great deal of misplaced criticism upon a work which was 


already bad enough. 


* There is some doubt whether this bust was made at the Bennington pottery. The 
late Dr. S. R. Wilcox told me that he understood it was made elsewhere and presented to 
Fenton. 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 131 


New Connitions, New DirFicutti£s 

In many respects, 1853-1854 was the best period of the Bennington 
enterprise. The favorable impression made by the exhibit at the 
Crystal Palace, the strength derived from Greatbach’s work on the 
technical side, and, more than all, the financial strength given to the 
company by Gager and such associates of his as came into it, com- 
bined to make the future appear rosily bright. In the summer of 1853 
the works were considerably enlarged to cope with the growing volume 
of business. It really appeared as if financial difficulties had all been 
safely surmounted and that the concern had been placed at last upon a 
sound and enduring basis. But by the beginning of 1855 the firm was 
again in trouble. 

The policy of direct dealing with country stores, while it had brought 
a large volume of trade, was attended with many drawbacks. Pay- 
ments were often tardy, and the cost of collection was unexpectedly 
high. The expense of delivery by wagons was great, and, with every 
step in the direction of making finer wares, this cost increased. It was 
quite different from the stoneware trade. Packing had to be more care- 
fully done; and this involved additional expenditure in the making of 
the tierces in which the goods were packed; it called for more packers, 
and, likewise, it sensibly decreased the quantity of ware which a team 
could carry. That, of course, meant employing more teams. Thus the 
factory ‘overhead’ was steadily increasing. Finally, fuel, one of the 
large items in operating cost, was constantly growing dearer. 

New capital had to be obtained somehow, and to that end another 
reorganization took place. The United States Pottery Company was 
incorporated in June, 1855, stock being sold at twenty-five dollars per 
share. The capital stock of the new company was placed at $200,000, 
the incorporators being J. H. Archer, of Wrentham, Massachusetts, 


132 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


O. A. Gager, of Boston and New York, S. H. Johnson, of New York, 
Christopher Webber Fenton, and H. Willard. | 

The amount of capital actually raised by the new company, though 
considerable, was altogether inadequate to its needs, as the event 
proved. O. A. Gager increased his holdings; a Dr. Hollis invested a 
large amount, said to have been virtually his entire savings; W. H. 
Farrar, who later established the Southern Porcelain Company at 
Kaolin, South Carolina, put some twenty-five thousand dollars into 
the concern during 1856-1857. Yet, all the time, the situation was 
growing worse, while, paradoxically enough, the prospects appeared 
brighter and better. While orders came in steadily increasing volume, 
overhead expenses grew out of proportion to the total of the business. 
Production costs increased and it was impossible to raise prices suffi- 
ciently to cover such costs without losing the business. 

Always the firm was ‘turning the corner at last,’ according to Fen- 
ton. As one reads many of the paragraphs in the various newspapers 
of the State, doubtless inspired by Fenton, who had something of a 
flair for publicity, one is impressed by the fact that then, as always, he 
saw golden success just ahead. When the production of Rockingham 
and Flint Enamelled cuspidors reached twenty-five hundred a week, 
the fact was heralded as a sure sign of success and prosperity. And 
when the firm introduced mortars and pestles made of thick, heavy 
semi-porcelain, which they called Wedgwood Mortar Ware, and found 
a ready market for them, the newspaper publicity attained an almost 
lyrical quality. 

At this time, 1855, in an effort to reduce operating costs, the kilns of 
the company were altered so that coal might be used for fuel in place 
of wood. It was hoped that this and other economies would save the 
situation. How important the fuel question appeared can be gathered 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 133 


from a statement issued by the company and published in the local 
press: 


Fue. — The present high rates at which wood merchants in this vicinity 
hold their wood, and the constantly increasing demands in price made upon 
the purses of consumers, has induced many this winter to adopt coal in its 
stead. The ‘United States Pottery Company,’ carrying on business in this 
place, are making the necessary arrangements, in the re-construction of 
kilns, &c., for immediately commencing the burning of coal. One thousand 
cords of wood have been consumed annually at this establishment. Others 
will, if the high price of wood is continued, also adopt coal, as it is deemed 
fully as cheap and a good deal more convenient and comfortable. Fifteen 
years ago, wood sold here, and we had the pleasure of burning some, for one 
dollar fifty and two dollars per cord — the latter body wood. Now it is selling 
for three and a half and four and a half dollars! which goes to show conclu- 
sively that wood dealers either made a poor living then or they are growing 
rich and fat now. We like to see men do well, but it does seem to us that our 
wood merchants, in trying to heap up the ‘dust’ too high, are only ‘biting 
off their own noses.’ But they, of course, know their own business best, as 
every one ought to; and they will not complain if consumers also study their 
own interests too, as they most certainly are and will continue to do.* 


FAILURE 

Things were going badly. It was more and more difficult to meet 
the big weekly payroll in full. Workmen were frequently paid in cash 
only part of the wages due to them, the balance being taken by them 
in trade at local stores and charged to the account of the company, 
this trade being offset against sums due to the latter by the stores for 
wares. As I have examined some of the ledgers of these old stores, I 
have been impressed by the evidence thus afforded of the precarious 
condition of the company from 1856 onward. In the early months of 
1858 it was quite evident that the company could not go on for long, 
unless from some unexpected source new capital should come, coupled 


* Vermont State Banner, December 21, 1855. 


134 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


with sound management. At this time about one hundred and fifty 
persons were employed — a considerably smaller number than had 
been employed twelve months before. The firm had more orders than 
it could fill, more than at any time in its history; but it could not col- 
lect its bills promptly, and many of the workmen went unpaid, or only 
partially paid, during the entire winter of 1857-1858. 

Then came the inevitable day of doom. The manner in which it was 
met by the company was highly creditable to Fenton, to the company, 
and to all concerned, and it deserves to be recorded here. As money 
was received from collections, the workmen were called into the office 
in little groups and told the situation. They were informed that they 
were preferred creditors, and, as fast as money was received, they were 
paid what was due to them. In this way the claims of the workmen 
were met before the doors of the plant were closed. On Saturday, 
May 15, 1858, the last bell was in the nature of a requiem. The United 
States Pottery Company was unable to continue. The Bennington 
Banner published the following account of the closing down of the 
works: 


CiosED Doors. — Officer Dewey took charge of the United States Pot- 
tery in this village at an early hour on Monday morning. The Company 
finding themselves unable to make collections sufficient to meet their present 
demands, gave their workmen notice of the fact that they might secure what 
the company were indebted to them. By this act of the Company the work- 
men have secured pay for their winter’s work. — This magnanimous act of 
the U.S. Pottery Company is worthy of imitation by all large and small 
manufacturing companies. The daily laborer should receive pay for his 
labor. Although we regret that the doors of this mammoth establishment 
must be closed for a few weeks, and perhaps months, we feel that it will be 
for the benefit of both the Company and our village in the end, for when it 
shall again start in business, it will be upon a sure and sound foundation. — 
The days of experiments have passed in this establishment. The reputation 
of their ware is established, and we hear from all sections that the quality of 
their ware is now better than ever before. We also learn from the Company 





FENTON AND THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 135 


that they have been unable to keep up with the orders which have been made 
upon them for the last few months. We hope soon to hear the bell at these 
works calling their workmen back to labor.* 


Thus ended one of the most interesting and fruitful chapters in the 
history of the pottery industry in America. In accordance with the 
half-hearted prophecy of the article quoted from the Bennington Ban- 
ner, Various attempts were made subsequently to reconstruct the busi- 
ness. With these, and with Fenton’s later career, we shall deal in a 
separate chapter. It is sufficient to say here that the United States 
Pottery had finished. Its restoration was impossible. For a little more 
than a decade, in the face of almost endless difficulties and discourage- 
ments, Christopher Webber Fenton had struggled to raise the stand- 
ards of the industry. That he fell short of his ideals, that even his 
ideals were sometimes crude, that his personal weakness contributed in 
some measure to his failure — may all be urged with literal truthful- 
ness. But when all that has been said, the truth, nevertheless, remains 
that the Bennington experiment contributed largely to the advance- 
ment of the pottery industry in this country, and that Christopher 
Webber Fenton is entitled to be held in honorable esteem as one of the 
great pioneers to whose efforts the present high state of the industry in 
America is, in no small measure, due. 


* Bennington Banner, May 21, 1858. 


II 
VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 


S soon as the United States Pottery was shut down, in May, 

1858, the subject of its revival began to be discussed. At the 

same time, however, so many of the most skilled workers 

began an exodus from the town as to make it apparent that any genu- 
ine revival of the business was impossible. It might be feasible, in- 
deed, to reopen the works and to manufacture pottery — at a profit 
even, but without Fenton and Clark, Greatbach, and others, the enter- 
prise would be different. It would not bea revival, but something new. 

The story of the attempts that were made to resuscitate the business 
may best be told by quotations from the local press from 1858 to 1860. 
In August, 1858, after having been idle for three months, the works 
were reopened by the firm of A. A. Gilbert & Co. Of this new firm 
O. A. Gager was an important member. He was still confident that the 
business could be made profitable. Calvin Park, Fenton’s old partner, 
was another important member and, for a time at least, manager. 
The Bennington Banner of August 20, 1858, chronicled the reopening 
in the following paragraph: 

Re-OpENED. — The United States Pottery was re-opened on Tuesday 
morning. It is now in the hands of A. A. Gilbert & Co., and we are informed 
is to be a ‘permanent institution” so far as running it is concerned. The 
sound of the bell on this mammoth establishment is a cheering sound to 


many families in this place, and it is our wish that it may not again cease to 
send forth its daily notes to the 150 employees. 


The new firm carried the business along for little more than a year. 
They used the old moulds and pottery marks. As a general rule, no 





VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 137 


mark was used to differentiate the wares produced by A. A. Gilbert 
& Co. from those produced prior to 1858 by the United States Pottery 
Company. Many of the inferior Rockingham and porcelain pieces 
which every collector of Bennington pottery encounters, and which 
are known to have been produced here, were made by the Gilbert firm. 
I have traced dozens of these inferior pieces — many of them bearing 
one or other of the marks of the United States Pottery Company — to 
this period. On the other hand, some exceptionally fine ware was 
made by the new company. This is true of some of the Rockingham, 
but more especially of the directly glazed hard porcelain that was pro- 
duced at this time. 

In the spring of 1859, Decius W. Clark was granted a patent for an 
improved enamel glaze for application to crockery and pottery wares 
and other materials. Even before the patent was obtained, this new 
glaze was used by A. A. Gilbert & Co. under the personal supervision 
of the inventor. Coarse bodies covered with this glaze presented an 
appearance which gave no indication of coarseness. My friend and 
fellow collector, Mr. George S. McKearin, has a pair of highly glazed 
creamy white poodle dogs of the familiar type, but slightly modified, 
which belong to this period and are interesting examples of this 
enamel glaze. The body differs radically from that of the Parian dogs. 
The use of this new glaze was regarded by the firm as its chief asset.* 
O. A. Gager was exceedingly optimistic concerning it. 

To this period also belongs a type of ware which has occasioned 
much trouble and perplexity to not a few collectors. From time to 
time pitchers are found which are quite unlike any of the well-known 
Bennington types, but with Bennington ‘pedigrees’ which are appar- 


* A long account of the newly patented invention was published by the Bennington Banner, 
June to, 1859. 


138 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


ently unchallengeable. The ware resembles granite in body and glaze. 
The background is pitted in the same manner as the hard porcelains, 
and there appear various designs in relief. These pitchers are gray in 
color, but of shades ranging from a rich silver gray to what may best 
be described as a grayish white. I have investigated the history of 
several of these pitchers and in each case have been satisfied that they 
were made at Bennington during the period 1858-1860. 


THe VENTURE AT WEsT TROY 

By the latter part of September, 1859, the firm of A. A. Gilbert 
& Co. was engaged upon the task of winding up its affairs. It had 
found itself confronted by exactly the same problems as those which 
its predecessor found insoluble. There was no lack of demand for its 
wares, but the cost of production and transportation, instead of being 
lowered, had increased. A group of the most skilled workers employed 
by the concern formed themselves into a joint stock company to go 
into the manufacture of pottery at West Troy, New York. In its issue 
of September 30, 1859, the Bennington Banner published this an- 


nouncement: 


New Joint Stock Company. — It having become apparent to every one, 
and particularly to the workmen in the U.S. Pottery of this village, that 
operations in that establishment would soon cease for the present at least, 
eight of the best workmen came together and formed a joint stock company, 
sent an agent to Troy, and made arrangements with the proprietors of the 
old stone-ware pottery for their works, and are now engaged in rigging it up 
for the manufacture of the same kind of ware as has been turned off at the 
United States. The names of those connected with the enterprise are as 
follows: Enoch Moore, S. Theiss, G. B. Sibley, T. Frey, Peter Stienbach, 
Wm. Leake, John Leigh, Jacob Mertz. They have our best wishes and we 
hope they will meet with good success.* 


Some of these men put into this little venture the savings of a life- 


* ] have corrected the spelling of some of the names. — Author. 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 139 


time. The company started with high hopes. It was believed that 
West Troy would prove to be a favorable location in two important 
particulars, namely, nearness to a large market for wares and great 
economy in the transportation of raw materials, especially the New 
Jersey and Long Island clays. O. A. Gager had promised to take all 
the ware the new concern could not market locally. The enterprise 
lasted only a few months, however, and most of the men returned to 
Bennington, having lost all their capital. William Leake went into 
bankruptcy, and so, I believe, did some of the others. 


FurRTHER EFFrort aT BENNINGTON 

In the meantime, from the end of September, 1859, to the beginning 
of 1860, some of the members of the Gilbert firm tried to carry on part 
of the works under the trade-name of the New England Pottery Com- 
pany.* Later on, in the summer of 1860, some of the old employees of 
the United States Pottery, including the solvent members of the West 
Troy concern, organized themselves into a company to restart the 
works at Bennington. Encouraged and inspired by D. W. Clark, and 
by Gager, who undertook to sell their ware for them upon most favor- 
able terms, this group started with a pitifully inadequate capital. 
There seems to have been some confusion as to the name of the new 
company, for contemporary references to it make use of several differ- 
ent titles. The two following extracts from the Bennington Banner 
chronicle the formation of the new company and the renewal of opera- 


tions: 


We are glad to see that some of the recent employees in the United States 
Pottery, at this place, have joined hands in the worthy enterprise of again 
running that public institution. They will try the experiment for a short 


* Bennington Banner, December 23, 1859. 


140 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


time,:and if successful, they intend to make a permanent thing of it. We 
hope it will go along, and the ‘boys’ reap an adequate reward for their 
undertaking.* 


Tue Unirep States Potrery. — We are glad to see this establishment 
occupied and worked, or a portion of it at least, altho it may not be on so 
large a scale as formerly. It is now being run by a number of the old work- 
men who have formed themselves into a company, and intend enlarging 
their operations as soon as it may seem advisable. We wish them all the 
success they deserve, as we have no doubt do our entire community, and 
trust that from the beginning now made a result may spring that shall not 
only enrich those intimately concerned, but prove a prominent business 
lever to our village, making it a permanent and not a temporary institution. 

The first kiln was drawn last week Thursday, and the ware is said to 
equal, if not surpass, that manufactured there heretofore. They propose 
taking up the coming Spring, if prospered, the making of white ware also. 
Mr. O. A. Gager, a partner in the firm of A. Gilbert and Co., who recently 
carried on the works, guarantees them to find a ready market for all the 
ware they can turn out. 


This venture lasted only a few weeks, when the works were once more 
shut down. Most of the men could not wait for money to come in. 
Credit was hard to obtain and they and their families must live. It 
was discouraging to have to take ware and go from store to store trying 
to exchange it for goods. Some of the men moved away — to Bur- 
lington, Vermont, Fort Edward, New York, Trenton, New Jersey, and 
other places. 


T. A. Hutcuins & Co. 

Once more there was a reorganization, under the leadership of 
Thomas A. Hutchins, a presser, and the firm of T. A. Hutchins & Co. 
reopened the works. They started with high hopes, as will appear 
from the report in the Bennington Banner. In conformity with what 


* July 27, 1860. 
+ August 31, 1860. 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 141 


appears to have been a custom having almost the force of law, they 
began by presenting a pitcher to the local newspaper office: 

Tuat Pircuer: We have received from Messrs. T. A. Hutchins & Co., 
the new Pottery Company in this place, a splendid pitcher, a sample of what 
they are turning out of their establishment. It is, we think, in advance of 
ware made by the ‘United States Pottery Company,’ notwithstanding it is 
made from Bennington clay, which they condemned. The new company 
has discovered a new process of mixing which renders it fully up to (if not in 
advance of) the New Jersey clay. The last lot of ware burned by them is of 
very superior quality. The ware sells readily. Indeed they have more orders 
than they can fill. We are glad to be able to record this evidence of their 
success, and our citizens we know will be most happy to hear of it.* 


Of the various successors to the United States Pottery Company 
the firm of T. A. Hutchins & Co. was the only one to use any other 
identification mark than those of the old company. Although I know 
of only one piece — a cuspidor — stamped with the name of this firm, 
the fact that such a stamp was used may be taken as an indication of 
the fact that the firm adopted a distinctive mark of its own. This firm 
managed to keep going in a small way for a few months, and then the 


works were once more closed down. 


H. F. Dewey 

They remained closed until 1863, when they were partially reopened 
by H. F. Dewey, who started grinding feldspar upon a small scale, for 
sale to other potteries elsewhere. No ware was made at this time, and 
Pitkin is in error in ascribing the ‘ Phrenological Head’ inkstand to this 
period, just as he is wrong in describing it as ‘Parian.’ { In its issue of 
May 7, 1863, the Bennington Banner published the following news 
item: 


* October 10, 1860. 
t See Pitkin, op. cit., p. 54. (No. 22.) 


142 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


THE Porrery: H. F. Dewey, Esq., has fitted up a part of the United 
States Pottery buildings, the water power, etc., and has commenced the 
grinding of feldspar. At the present high rates of crockery ware, and the 
ready sale it meets, we cannot see why a company could not make it pay to 
start up the works at once. 


Nothing came of the suggestion contained in this paragraph, how- 
ever, and in 1870 the buildings were torn down and the Graded School 


erected upon the site. 


Ciosinc Years oF C. W. FENTON 

We may well close this chapter with a brief sketch of the career of 
Christopher Webber Fenton from the time of the failure of the United 
States Pottery Company, in May, 1858, to his untimely death. Al- 
most immediately after the closing of the works at Bennington, in 
May, 1858, Fenton and D. W. Clark went to Kaolin, South Carolina, 
taking with them Daniel Greatbach and other leading artisans. Both 
Fenton and Clark had a sentimental interest in the pottery which had 
been established at Kaolin, for the enterprise was in a sense the off- 
spring of the United States Pottery at Bennington. About six miles 
from Augusta, Georgia, and an equal distance from Aiken, South Caro- 
lina, there were large deposits of kaolin. Farmers and others in the 
surrounding districts used the clay for whitewashing fences and build- 
ings, but no other use had ever been made of it, so far as is known. 
Various English pottery firms had been interested in these deposits, 
including the noted firms of Wedgwood, Clews, and Ridgway. In a 
small way, the clay had been experimentally tried out at Bennington, 
and it was as a result of these experiments that, in the summer of 
1856, William H. Farrar, one of the principal stockholders of the 
United States Pottery, had gone to South Carolina and established a 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 143 


pottery near the clay banks. He likewise interested some of the lead- 
ing citizens of Georgia and South Carolina, with the result that a stock 
company was formed, Farrar himself being a large stockholder. It is 
interesting to note that, among those who were actively interested in 
the company, was Alexander H. Stephens, who some years later be- 
came the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy. 

Farrar was not himself a practical potter; all that he knew about 
the industry was what he had picked up at Bennington as a result of 
his interest there. He was quite convinced that the management of a 
pottery would not be materially different from the management of any 
other industrial enterprise; that so long as he employed skilled work- 
men he could not fail to succeed. He controlled a plentiful supply of 
clay of good quality; a great market lay close at hand, so that trans- 
portation costs would not be high; a pottery was needed in that section 
of the country, and he was assured of the good will and active support 
of the most influential citizens. Farrar took with him to Kaolin the 
master carpenter who had built the United States Pottery buildings, 
and the bricklayer who had built the kilns, the main features of which 
were now reproduced. When the plant was ready he sent to Benning- 
ton for the nucleus of a working force. 

When Fenton and Clark went to Kaolin after the closing of the Ben- 
nington works, they seriously contemplated the possibility of joining 
forces with Farrar and his associates in the southern enterprise. They 
were perfectly well aware that the experience of the concern so far had 
been discouraging. During the whole of the first year the greater part 
of the ware produced was so poor that it was not fit for the general 
market. Much of it was ruined in the firing, and there were other 
difficulties. Clark had been appealed to and had gone to Kaolin, late 
in 1857, to study the problems on the spot and to make recommenda- 


144 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


tions. When he returned to Bennington he sent his son, Lyman W. 
Clark, to supervise the mixing of bodies and glazes. 

The real difficulty seems to have arisen from the fact that, while a 
genius like Decius W. Clark could make a ware of good quality from 
the South Carolina clay exclusively, less competent men could not do 
it. The manager of the works was Josiah Jones, a native of Stafford- 
shire, England, one of the best designers of his day. He had achieved 
distinction by his work at the pottery of his brother-in-law, Charles 
Cartlidge, at Greenpoint, New York. Although he was a designer by 
profession, Jones was also a practical potter, thoroughly competent. 
He stoutly contended that it was necessary to get some other clay to 
mix with the local clay, and most of the potters agreed with him. 
Farrar, however, was adamant in his refusal to permit this. 

In the early part of 1858, when Fenton and Clark went there, the 
establishment was turning out some fairly good hard porcelain, as well 
as Common White and Common Yellow of excellent quality. The 
cost of production, however, was excessive. Much of the inferior blue 
and white ware with pitted background, which resembles the Ben- 
nington ware of this type, but is inferior to it, was made at Kaolin and 
sent north. 

Fenton stayed at Kaolin only a few weeks. Clark remained there 
some time longer, supervising various experiments intended to find a 
solution for the technical problems which were perplexing the strug- 
gling company. Fenton moved on to Peoria, Illinois, where he at once 
began to interest a group of capitalists in the possibilities of the pot- 
tery industry in that section of the country, and to raise capital for the 
most ambitious undertaking of his life — in some respects the most 
ambitious in the history of the pottery industry in America. He was 
soon joined by Clark, who had sold to the southern concern a number 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 145 


of formulas for bodies and glazes which he had evolved and success- 
fully used in its plant, thus making it possible for the concern to con- 
tinue. 

The foundation of the ambitious enterprise of the two men at this 
time was a new enamel which Clark had invented and patented, and to 
which reference has already been made. This will be described at some 
length in a subsequent chapter. For the moment we are concerned 
with its relation to the Peoria enterprise. They projected an immense 
“departmental pottery’ at Peoria which would employ more than one 
thousand workers. An elaborate diagram was prepared, showing a 
series of buildings, arranged something like an enormous wheel, each 
building being devoted to a separate branch of the industry and all 
converging at a common center of administration and distribution. 
In one unit Rockingham Ware would be produced; in another White 
Ware; in a third Stoneware — and so on. Their greatest hopes were 
founded upon an entirely new branch of industry, the manufacture 
of enamelled bricks, blocks, and ornamental architectural pieces for 
building purposes... Clark’s new patent enamel was the basis upon 
which this new branch of the industry was to be built. While manu- 
facturers of brick in other parts of the country were to be licensed to 
use the new patent enamel, upon a royalty payment, as will be ex- 
plained later, the Peoria concern was to have the exclusive use of the 
enamel for a large district, and it was confidently expected that this of 
itself would ensure financial success. 

Fenton was extraordinarily successful in his appeal to the business 
men of Peoria and the surrounding country. In the summer of 1859 
work was begun upon one wing of the projected mammoth plant, and, 
when Fenton returned to Bennington, in December of that year, on a 


visit, one wing of the building, one hundred and fifty feet by forty 


146 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


feet, three stories in height, had been completed and was ready for the 
installation of machinery. Fenton and Clark contracted with a Ben- 
nington firm, Grover and Harrington, to manufacture the machinery 
for the Peoria pottery. They also bought and leased many deposits of 
feldspar and contracted with more than twenty mills for the grinding 
of feldspar to be used in the manufacture of Clark’s patent enamel. 
One of the mills thus engaged was situated in Bennington, a small 
plant, later used as a pottery, owned by Enos Adams. 

Among the capitalists who joined Fenton & Clark in this great en- 
terprise was G. W. Lascell, of Syracuse, New York, who seems to have 
been the principal factor in bringing about a close relation between 
the group of Peoria capitalists and a similar group belonging to New 
York and New England. Arrangements were made with the New 
England Pottery, of Bennington, successor to the A. A. Gilbert Com- 
pany and the earlier United States Pottery Company, to supply de- 
signs and moulds for use in Peoria. Undoubtedly, a great many 
moulds were sent to Peoria from Bennington, which explains why so 
many pieces of Rockingham identical with well-known Bennington 
models, but either believed or known to have been made at Peoria, are 
encountered by the collector. 

Upon the occasion of Fenton’s return to Bennington at this time the 
local paper published an editorial in which, while it was broadly inti- 
mated that Fenton was responsible for the failure of the local pottery 
— that he had dealt it a ‘parricidal blow’ — he was greatly eulogized: 


The return of our old friend, C. W. Fenton, the pioneer potter of the 
United States, to the field of his former exploits, has dispelled the fear that 
he had transferred his entire interests to the home of his adoption in the 
great West, leaving to others less favored by the touch of genius and energy, 
the task of conducting the enterprises that sprung at his will into a living 
reality among us, giving to his name and to our town an enviable notoriety 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 147 


throughout the Union. One of the evidences of this is seen in the fact of his 
having confided the charge of manufacturing the machinery for the great 
Pottery at Peoria, Ill., to Messrs. Grover & Harrincrov, which is not only 
an assurance that he has not forgotten his old friends, but that he has exer- 
cised the best business sagacity on the score of economy, as the practical 
experience of these gentlemen acquired in the manufacturing of machinery 
for the several potteries Mr. Fenton has constructed during the past fifteen 
years, is to those interested a sure guarantee of the utmost perfection in its 
construction and operation. 

We also learn that Mr. Fenton, in connection with Mr. Clark, has brought 
the New England Pottery, in this village, into requisition in the manufacture 
of designs, moulds, &c., for the use of the Peoria (Ill.) Pottery, which, 
together with the preparation of glazes for the already celebrated enameled 
building material, will require the full capacity of the factory both day and 
night for the Winter at least. This is really some compensation to the 
enterprises of our Village for the parricidal blow one of these gentlemen dealt 
the United States Pottery, which has paralyzed it for the present at least. 

We have never doubted the ability of C. W. Fenton, in a fair field, to 
accomplish all that he might undertake; but we confess that, with all our 
confidence in his energy and executive abilities, we are fearful that in his 
efforts to supply the great valley of the Mississippi with Pottery wares, he 
will so far forget the attention due to the Pottery business in Bennington as 
to fail in the full realization of his early aspirations of making this the Staf- 
fordshire of the Union. Peoria, Illinois, is indebted for his preference of 
locality only from its possessing very superior facilities for the manufacture 
and distribution of Pottery wares; but from whatever motive his preference 
of any other locality than this may have been, and however much we may 
regret the loss of one who has done so much for Bennington, we can but 
admire his praiseworthy efforts to rid this country of her abject dependence 
on Great Britain for an article so indispensable to the comfort and conven- 
ience of the people at large. We congratulate Mr. FENTON upon the generous 
and hearty response of the people of the West to his wishes in carrying 
forward so worthy an enterprise, as evidencing their high appreciation of 
the man and his mission. 

Hasty preparations are being made by Crark, Jonnson & Co., in their 
arrangements, preparatory to their early departure for Peoria, which we 
understand will be in a few days.* 


The next issue of the same paper contained an endorsement of this 


* Bennington Banner, December 23, 1859. 


148 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


tribute, signed by the Governor of the State, that great Vermonter, 
Hiland Hall, and by other distinguished and influential citizens. It 
was an endorsement of the newspaper’s high praise by men whose 
names stood for all that was best in the community. There were, in 
addition to Governor Hiland Hall, ex-Governor John S. Robinson, 
Pierpont Isham, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Vermont and 
a distinguished lawyer, Samuel H. Blackmer, Clerk of the Court of 
Chancery and one of the most honored men in the community. With 
these were associated the leaders of the bar, the principal clergymen 
and a number of the business men and manufacturers of the town, 
thirty-four signers in all. The text of the endorsement, and the edito- 
rial prefatory note which accompanied it read: 


MESSRS. FENTON & CLARK 


We find by the following that we are not alone in the expression of our 
admiration and appreciation of Messrs. Fenton anp Crark, and are 
much gratified to be able to record an endorsement from so high a source; 
and of a character so complimentary and deserved; and so characteristic of 
the good and generous qualities of the subscribers. 


EpITor OF THE BANNER: 
Dear Sir: 

Your notice in the last issue of the Bennington Banner, of the return of 
C. W. Fenton from his late protracted visit in the West, and the contem- 
plated removal of himself and his associate, Mr. D. W. Clark, from this 
community, in which they have resided for so many years; whose enter- 
prises they have contributed to so materially in building up, and who, by 
their genius and energy, have reflected so much credit on the manufacturing 
character of our State; together with the high commendations they have 
received from the ‘Press’ of our State, admonishes us that some expression 
of appreciation is also due them from this community. We, therefore, beg 
leave to assure you that we cheerfully endorse all that you and your con- 
temporaries have said in their behalf — with the hope that this expression 
of appreciation of their services, and regret for their loss to our town and 
State, will bespeak for them the confidence and esteem of the citizens of 


ae 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 149 


Peoria, and the West; where and among whom, we understand they are about 
to remove. 
We remain, yours, Very Truly, 
[Signatures.] 


We have taken the liberty to prefix the titles to the names of the above 
individuals, that the public may be better prepared to judge of the character 
of the testimony which they bear toward the gentlemen whose names head 
this article.* 


The response which Fenton and Clark made to these flattering 
encomiums is of especial interest because it summarizes so well their 
own estimate of their achievements at Bennington, and, more im- 
portant still, their view of the Middle West as a field for their efforts. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Epitor BANNER: 
Dear Sir: . 
Through your Journal we beg leave to assure those gentlemen who have 
so generously and so publicly given the expression of their approval of our 
efforts to succeed in the difficult though interesting art we have labored so 
long to develop, and the influence our labors have had in forwarding the 
enterprises of their village, that if anything could add to the regrets we 
naturally feel on leaving a place which for thirty years has been our home 
and the field of our labors and which is endeared to us by a thousand pleasing 
recollections, it is the evidence they have given that they leave behind us 
the regrets and good wishes of those valuable friends, who have by their 
countenance and encouragement contributed so materially to whatever of 
success may have awarded our efforts; we, therefore, assure them that 
though we are not so presumptuous as to lay claim to all the credit and skill 
they have been pleased so generously to award us, we are as grateful for the 
tribute bestowed upon us as though it were more fully deserved. Therefore, 
in tendering our thanks for an endorsement, at once so complimentary to 
ourselves, and so well calculated to secure for us the confidence and esteem 
of the strangers among whom we are about to locate, we beg leave to assure 
them that the public evidence they have given us of their appreciation and 


* Bennington Banner, December 30, 1859. 


150 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


good wishes, will stimulate us to deserve their esteem and the confidence 
they have bespoken in our behalf. 

To yourself and to those of your contemporaries who have spoken so 
favorably of our enterprises, and so flatteringly of our skill in the develop- 
ment of the plastic art in this country, we also beg leave to tender our 
thanks; but in so doing, we owe it to ourselves as well as to those skillful 
foreign manufacturers, who have attained so high a degree of eminence in an 
art on which they have reflected so much credit, to declare that with all our 
aspirations for public favor, we are not so vain as to suppose that in the 
mastery of the intricacies of an art requiring in its development the utmost 
proficiency in the science of chemistry, practical geology, mineralogy, the 
art of design and the chemistry of Pottery, without access to the secure 
laboratories of foreign manufactories, where lay hid the accumulated ac- 
quirements of ages in the art — with material untried and differing widely 
from that used elsewhere — forced thus to grope our way in the dark, relying 
on ourselves alone, aided only by such skill in its mechanical department as 
we could reach from abroad, we have been able to attain that degree of 
proficiency in the manufacture as to entitle us to the skill you and your 
contemporaries have been pleased so generously to award us — nor are we so 
unjust as to claim that precedents* in the art of fine Pottery that our better 
judgment tells us has not yet been transferred to this country. We are, 
however, proud to believe, from practical observation, that no country 
contains better material for the fabrication of Pottery Ware, than the 
United States, and we hazard nothing in saying that the art has been so far 
developed on this side of the Atlantic, as to warrant the hope that the day is 
not far distant when this country, by virtue of the knowledge of the art 
already .acquired — the proverbial skill and energy of our people — the 
convenience, quality and abundance of the raw material — the extent of 
the market to be cultivated, and the tempting remunerative character of the 
trade, will be able to secure all the advantages to be derived from this great 
industrial art in our own country at least. 

In transferring the prosecution of our business from Vermont to the great 
Valley of the Mississippi, we are influenced only by the superior advantages 
that that locality presents over the Atlantic States, in the abundance and 
quality of Pottery material — its unrivalled facilities for cheap freights — 
the extent and rapid growth of its markets, and the superior advantages it 
possesses for a more successful competition with foreign manufactures — a 
consideration not to be overlooked in this early stage of the enterprise in this 
country. With these advantages in our favor, and the practical foreign skill 


* Sic! < precedence’ is meant. 





VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 151 


that a more liberal international sentiment has opened to our reach, we doubt 
not we shall meet the full reward our efforts may deserve. 


Yours truly 
C. W. Fenton 
D. W. CLarkK 


BENNINGTON, Fan. 2, 1860.* 

It would take us too far afield to follow in detail the fortunes of 
either the Kaolin or the Peoria enterprises. Of the former, with which 
Fenton was only slightly connected, it is sufficient to say that in 1859 
or 1860 it was reorganized as the Southern Porcelain Company, and 
that it continued until the works were burned down, in 1864. It was 
the only porcelain factory in the South during the Civil War. 

The Peoria enterprise was also short-lived. There is a tradition to 
the effect that the first kiln of ware was drawn late in November, 
1859, immediately prior to Fenton’s visit to Bennington, already 
described. According to this tradition, Fenton brought with him to 
Bennington a lot of samples of the Peoria ware — principally pitchers 
and mugs — which were decorated in Bennington by Theophile Frey 
and presented to various persons. This tradition at first seemed to me 
to be supported by contemporary evidence, for in its issue of February 
17, 1860, the Bennington Banner expressed the thanks of the editor’s 
‘better half’ to the ‘gentlemen comprising the American Pottery Com- 
pany’ for ‘the elegantly decorated pitcher presented to her by them 
last week.’ The paper goes on to say that ‘if it is to be taken as a fair 
sample of what they are to turn out of their Peoria Pottery, their 
ware, it seems to us must take the preference over all others. The glaz- 
ing is most excellent — CLarx’s best.’ The credit for the gilding is 
credited to ‘friend Frey, who goes to Peoria to do the gilding for the 
Company.’ 


* Bennington Banner, January 6, 1860. 


152 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


I am now convinced that the tradition is the outgrowth of a mis- 
understanding — possibly of this very paragraph from the Bennington 
Banner. It is certain that when Fenton returned to Bennington in 
December, 1859, operations had not commenced at the Peoria plant; 
the machinery was not even made. It was late in the spring of 1860 
before even the first wing of the Peoria Pottery was in operation. The 
pitcher presented to the ‘better half’ of the local editor, therefore, 
could not have been made at Peoria. It was undoubtedly made at 
Bennington, possibly of the Illinois clay, and was a souvenir of the 
pottery there. 

It would appear that, at this time, there were two distinct organiza- 
tions, the American Pottery Company and the Peoria Pottery Com- 
pany. Fenton is always described as ‘President of the American Pot- 
tery Company’ in all statements relating to the patent enamel busi- 
ness. On the other hand, the office stationery of the Peoria Pottery is 
headed Peoria Pottery Company, and that mark is known to have been 
used upon Rockingham and other wares. In the spring of 1861 a new 
department — stoneware — was added to the pottery in pursuance of 
the elaborate plans announced in 1859. This is made quite certain by 
a letter which Decius W. Clark wrote on April 24, 1861, to James 
Gregg, a potter formerly employed at the United States Pottery, but 
then residing in Fort Edward, New York. The letter reads: 


OFFICE OF THE PEeorIA PoTrery Co. 
PeortA, ILx., Zpril 24, 1861 


James GREGG: 

The new stone-ware Pottery is now being built. War is being inaugurated 
in the most splendid and qualifying style; so hold yourself ready, for either or 
both, as the case may require, assured that both in the end will be a complete 
success. But of all things for our country first — first, last and till the death, 
for our old, glorious Star Spangled Banner. — Sooner than permit Traitors’ 
stock in our midst, and traitors’ triumphs, let us use the Stars and Stripes 


VAIN ATTEMPTS AT REVIVAL 153 


for our winding sheet in death. The war excitement with us is most intense; 
C. Manchester, F. B. Fenton,* and Thos. Johnson, and two other boys you 
do not know, have joined the Zouaves from our works, and the rest of us 
have joined the Home Guards, and so it goes. This State represents a 
military company, so aroused are the people with just the right feeling, a 
feeling of patriotism that will, with the united North, squelch out rebellion 
and hurl every secessionist into the deep, dark grave of the traitor. 

Three times three for the old Union, for liberty and the prosperity of our 
free institutions. 

D. W. Ciark 

The Peoria Pottery Company failed early in 1863, according to the 
most reliable information that I have been able to obtain; and the 
American Pottery Company appears to have fizzled out about the 
same time. Thus ended the most ambitious enterprise in the history 
of the pottery industry in the United States. 

In the meantime, Christopher Webber Fenton had lost his first 
wife and married another. His first wife, Louisa (Norton) Fenton, 
did not go with her husband to Peoria, but continued to live on at 
Bennington. She died there, December 3, 1860, aged forty-nine 
years. Fenton married in Peoria, Illinois, on July 3, 1861, a Mrs. 
J. E. Smith, of that city. By her he had at least one child, a daughter, 
Louisa. On the occasion of a visit to Bennington by Fenton and his 
second wife and their infant daughter, his oldest daughter by his first 
wife, who had become the wife of Calvin Park, adopted her little half- 
sister, who grew to womanhood under her care. This daughter of 
Fenton by his second wife became the wife of Henry D. Fillmore, of 
Bennington. Christopher Webber Fenton died from accidental 
causes at Joliet, Illinois, June 7, 1865, aged fifty-nine years. 


* C, W. Fenton’s oldest son. 


Ii 
VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 


UMEROUS enthusiastic collectors in all parts of the 

United States, and not a few in other lands, have for years 

competed against one another for good specimens of the 
pottery and porcelain made at Bennington by Christopher Webber 
Fenton and his associates under various firm names. Collecting 
Bennington ware has been a hobby as seriously pursued as any other 
form of collecting. Great museums have attributed as much import- 
ance to Bennington ware as to historical china, Staffordshire figures, 
or any other forms of ceramic art. They have installed large collec- 
tions, have issued catalogues, and have arranged for lectures descrip- 
tive of them. In books and numerous magazine articles the products 
of Bennington potteries have been described, praised, and illustrated. 
It is not strange, therefore, that the competition of collectors has 
resulted in absurdly high prices, exceptionally good specimens — 
particularly of the finer animal pieces — having brought several 
hundred dollars each. 

In view of the foregoing facts, it is strange and almost inexplicable 
that the collector who desires a reliable guide is unable to find, among 
all the books, catalogues, and magazine articles devoted either wholly 
or in part to the subject, a comprehensive list of the varieties and 
types of ware produced at the Bennington potteries. Of all the 
people who have collected Bennington, and of all the hundreds of 
dealers who have bought and sold it, it is safe to say that not more 
than half a dozen understand how many and what kinds of ware are 
known to have been produced by Norton & Fenton, C. W. Fenton, 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 155 


Lyman & Fenton, and the United States Pottery Company — to 
name only the principal companies that operated the Bennington 
plant. In such circumstances, how can there be intelligent collecting, 
buying, or selling? 

It is often said, and quite seriously believed by many collectors and 
others, that the monumental piece made for the New York Exhibition 
at the Crystal Palace, 1853-54, by the United States Pottery Com- 
pany — which formed the center of its exhibit — was designed in part 
to show, in a single piece of gigantic proportions, in its component 
parts every variety and type of ware produced by the company. Ac- 
cording to this interesting theory, the firm manufactured four types, as 
follows: (1) Scroddled or Lava Ware, of which the bottom section of 
the base of the monument is made; (2) Flint Enamel Ware, of which 
the second section of the base and the corniced top are made; (3) 
Rockingham Ware, of which the Corinthian columns enclosing the 
bust are made; (4) Parian, of which the bust of Fenton and the 
surmounting figure of a mother and her child are made. 

It is a pity to spoil such an interesting theory; but it must be done. 
‘The truth is that the firm made several varieties and types of ware in 
addition to those exemplified in the monumental piece in question, and 


that even the foregoing classification is arbitrary and misleading. 


PITKIN’s CLASSIFICATION 
Pitkin, in his book, refers to and describes the following varieties 
and types: Rockingham (flint enamelled); Rockingham (not flint 
enamelled); Parian ware, white and colored; Granite ware; Scroddled 
or Lava ware; Tiles, inlaid and enamelled; Marbled ware. Under 
these heads he classified the well-known collection bearing his name 
in the Morgan Memorial at Hartford, and also the lists in his book.* 


* With the exception of the Tiles, of which he never found a specimen. 


156 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


It is a great pity that so many collectors have had to rely upon a 
classification so incomplete and faulty. 

Pitkin makes a separate category of Marbled as distinguished from 
Lava or Scroddled Ware; yet in his description of the latter he clearly 
identifies it with the former.* This is confusing. Marbled Ware is 
quite distinct from Lava or Scroddled Ware, of course; and the 
distinction between the two is very clear, as we shall see later on. But 
Marbled Ware was not made at Bennington. Again, after having 
enumerated the varieties and types of wares included in his classifica- 
tion and already quoted above, Pitkin adds this statement: ‘ Porce- 
lain, both hard and soft paste, was made at this pottery, but in small 
amounts with only partial success.’ f 

It is clear enough that he meant this statement to be taken literally. 
In the lists he offers for the guidance of the collector he does designate 
a single item as ‘porcelain,’ though many others are undoubtedly 
porcelain. In the Catalogue of the Pitkin Collection of Bennington 
Pottery, prepared by Frederick J. Williamson and included in the 
book, only two items are classified as porcelain. Of course, the Parian 
Ware, which Pitkin says was made in large quantities, is a true 
porcelain, and it is clear that the statement that Parian was made in 
large quantities is not to be reconciled with the other statement 
that porcelain was made ‘in small amounts with only partial success.’ 
The plain and easily ascertainable truth is that an immense amount 
of hard porcelain was made at the Fenton Potteries; that greater 
technical and artistic success was achieved in this branch of manu- 
facture than in any other; that some soft paste porcelain was made; 
that, finally, the amount of Parian, properly so-called, that was made 
was relatively small. 


* Pitkin, op. cit., pp. 38-39. t Op. cit., p. 39. 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 157 


It is fairly indicative of the confusion that exists concerning Parian 
Ware that at least seventy-five per cent of the pieces, which Pitkin 
designates as Parian, both in his book and in his collection, are not 
Parian at all. By his own showing, and using his own definitions as 
standards, these pieces should be classified as ordinary hard porcelain. 
Presently we shall have to discuss in some detail the distinctive 
features of Parian and its relation to other types of porcelain. For the 
present, therefore, it will suffice to quote Pitkin’s own definition. On 
page 35 he correctly defines Parian in the following terms: 


Parian was an unglazed porcelain supposed to imitate Parian marble. It 
was moulded with elaborate floral designs in relief. Besides pitchers and 
vases a few statuettes were produced for mantel ornament, such as the 
Praying Child in the Pitkin Collection.... When not too thick Parian is 
translucent. Many of the ornamental forms have much delicacy of modelling 
and a velvety surface probably obtained by coating the interior of the 
seggars in which they were fired with glaze which vaporized with the heat, 
gave the ware a glossy finish. On/y those pieces intended to hold liquids 
were actually glazed and then it was on the inside. 


On page 20 he defines Parian in the following words, ‘This is a hard 
porcelain, and took its name from the resemblance to Parian marble.’ 
On page 38 he says, ‘The Parian Ware they made in large quantities 
and great variety of articles, useful and ornamental.’ Then on page 
39 comes the statement, already quoted, that ‘Porcelain... was 
made...in small amounts with only partial success.’ Could confu- 
sion be worse confounded than this, or greater perplexity offered the 


collector? Let us summarize the essence of these statements: 


(1) Parian is a hard porcelain. 

(2) This hard porcelain was made at Bennington in large quantities with 
SUCCESS. 

(3) Porcelain was made at Bennington only in small amount with little 
success. 


158 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Finally, although we are told that Parian is ‘an unglazed porcelain,’ 
and that it was never glazed, except that ‘those pieces intended to 
hold liquids’ were glazed, but only ‘on the inside,’ the first item in 
the Catalogue is a white pitcher, described as ‘Glazed outside and 
inside,’ and listed as ‘White Parian.’ The same mistake is com- 
mitted several times throughout the Catalogue. 


Tue ActTuaL Propuct, 1845-1858 
It is exceedingly doubtful that any American pottery of the period 
1845-1858, manufactured a greater variety of wares than was pro- 
duced in the Bennington potteries directed by Christopher Webber 
Fenton. It is certain that few produced anything approaching an 
equal variety. The following discussion does not complete the list, 
but it is at least illuminating: 


I. Common White 

The output of table ware, pitchers, toilet sets, and similar articles of 
domestic utility, in the white earthen ware known to the trade as 
Common White, was always large, and at times enormous. Common 
White differed in no particular of quality, design, or appearance, 
which the most expert can discover, from similar ware produced in 
numerous American potteries during the same period, as well as before 
and after it. Never marked in any manner, it is quite impossible to 
identify it. Almost all of this Common White was thrown and turned 
upon the wheel: only a small proportion was pressed into moulds. In 
and around Bennington, as in virtually every other part of the United 
States, a great deal of this Common White is to be found. It is pos- 
sible, and even probable, that much of that found in and around 
Bennington was made at the United States Pottery, but the collector 
has no means of knowing this, except in rare cases, where the history 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 159 


of the piece, or pieces, is unimpeachable. I know of only three pieces 
of this ware the authenticity of which is, in my judgment, beyond 
dispute or question. 

These pieces constitute part of a child’s toy tea-set, consisting of 
tea-pot, cream-pitcher, and covered sugar-bowl. They were made at 
the United States Pottery. A Mrs. Cartwright, who was employed in 
the Pottery assisting in the manufacture of Common White, had 
them made there for her small daughter, Nettie Cartwright. W. G. 
Leake, whose father was employed in the pottery, and who, as a boy, 
worked there, himself, after school hours and on Saturdays, clearly 
remembers Mrs. Cartwright as working on the Common White. He 
also remembers the little daughter for whom the toys were made. 

The Leake family and the Cartwright family were near neighbors 
on Pottery Street. In the first year of the Civil War, Nettie Cart- 
wright, having outgrown such toys, gave the tea-set to a little girl 
named Knapp, whose family also lived on Pottery Street and whom 
W. G. Leake also knew. Little Miss Knapp in the course of time 
became Mrs. Frank Hill, of Bennington, and the toys were used by 
her children and grandchildren. It was from Mrs. Hill that I bought 
them, and, by a curious coincidence, W. G. Leake was present at the 
time, and so met Mrs. Hill whom he had not seen in fifty years. He 
not only remembered the parties named in this account, but also 
recalled having seen just such children’s sets made at the United 
States Pottery. Although the tea-pot in its long history was often 
filled with tea or coffee and set upon the kitchen stove, it is much less 
discolored than the sugar-bowl. For a long time I could not account 
for this fact, but now I know that the old-fashioned brown sugar 
frequently had this effect upon all sorts of white china. 


160 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


II. Common Yellow 

This is also the trade name of a ware that was made at Bennington 
in great quantity. There was a large demand for milk pans, mixing- 
bowls, mugs, baking-dishes, pitchers, custard cups, and similar 
domestic utensils in this cheap, clean-looking, substantial, and almost 
fireproof ware. Like the Common White this Common Yellow was 
never marked, and it did not differ in any way from similar ware 
produced in numerous other potteries then in operation throughout 
the United States. Specimens cannot, I believe, be positively identi- 
fied by any human being. 

I know of only one sample of this ware made at the United States 
Pottery concerning which there can be no least shadow of doubt. 
When William G. Leake was a boy of ten,* under the supervision of 
his father, William Leake, who was working at the pottery, he made a 
small mug of Common Yellow for his sister, who has kept it all through 
the years, a precious and, to her, priceless possession. I have other 
specimens of Common Yellow that were indubitably made at Benning- 
ton, and I know of still others in the hands of other collectors, but it is 
not certain whether they were made at the United States Pottery or in 
the Norton Pottery, or whether they were made during the period of 
Fenton’s control or later. Of the little mug, and of it alone, I can say 
with absolute certainty, ‘This is a specimen of the Common Yellow 
earthenware made at the United States Pottery.’ 


ITI. Stone China 
This also is a familiar trade name, somewhat differently used by 
most manufacturers to-day than it was at Bennington sixty-odd 
years ago. For this reason, it seems necessary, or at least desirable, 


* This was not long before the United States Pottery closed down. 


a ae 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 161 


to make clear the precise nature of the ware to which Fenton himself 
applied the term ‘Stone China.’ It is different from the Common 
White, already described, principally in that it is finer in texture, can 
be used in much thinner forms than the latter, and may be said to 
occupy a place midway between Common White and porcelain. Be- 
cause of its fine texture and dense, hard body, it is often called 
‘semi-porcelain.” Like the wares previously named, the Stone 
China was never marked, so far as I have been able to discover. Its 
identification must always be uncertain, therefore, except where a 
specimen is accompanied by a history of unimpeachable authenticity. 
Without claiming too much expert knowledge in a field where there is 
so much uncertainty and so little positive authority, I content myself 
with the observation that the Bennington product, so far as I have 
been able to study authenticated specimens, seems to equal in funda- 
mental quality the best English and American products of the period, 
and to be superior to most contemporary ware of similar substance. 
By ‘fundamental quality’ here I mean fineness of texture, purity of 
color, perfection of shape, lightness of weight, freedom from specks and 
defects due to impurities in the clay or to over-firing, and, lastly, 
approximation to porcelain in all except the characteristic translucence 
of the latter. Some of the Bennington Stone China tea and dinner 
services, decorated with gold bands,* and the basket-work fruit- 
stands, most of which were similarly decorated, were of a high order of 
excellence. They are often erroneously classified as Granite Ware, a 
result, no doubt, of the fact that in present-day usage ‘Granite’ and 
‘Stone China’ are used interchangeably, as different names for the 
same thing. Fenton, however, in all his announcements, and in 


* There were some gold-banded white table services made in a finer grade — true por- 
celain in fact. 


162 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


every article about his work which he inspired or wrote, kept the two 
apart, as distinct wares. 
IV. Granite Ware 

This name was given to a ware the body of which may be said to 
represent a middle quality between the Common White and the 
Stone China. It has not the porcelain-like appearance of the latter. 
Harder and more vitreous than the body of Common White, it is both 
coarser and less vitreous than that of Stone China. Its glaze is not so 
closely akin to the body in its composition as is the glaze of Stone 
China, but is more like that of the Common White. It was extensively 
employed in the manufacture of toilet sets, cuspidors, water-pitchers, 
and the like. It was also used quite largely for the manufacture of 
pieces intended for presentation to individuals, and to be embellished 
with the names of recipients or with appropriate inscriptions, in gold 
or colors, the nature of the glaze used making it particularly adaptable 
to such decoration and embellishment. In this ware, water-pitchers, 
cow-creamers, and trinket-boxes bearing the names of their original 
owners, or presentation inscriptions done in gold, are most sought 
after by collectors. Sometimes the design used includes vine leaves 
and bunches of grapes in a rich blue outlined with gold, in addition to 
the customary gold decoration. 

This ware is never marked. Collectors have almost wholly relied 
upon the shape of pieces and the style of their ornamentation in 
identifying specimens of this ware — especially in the case of pitchers. 
These last are nearly always of the rather squatty, bulging pattern 
known as the ‘Saint Nicholas Pitcher’ —a name derived from the 
fact that this form of pitcher was specially designed for the Saint 
Nicholas Hotel, a once famous New York establishment which stood 
at the corner of Broadway and Spring Street, and, for some years 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 163 


after its opening in 1854, was one of the great show places of the city. 
During the Civil War the Saint Nicholas was the favorite stopping- 
place for army officers. The water-pitchers used in the guest rooms bore 
the name of the hotel in gold and were especially designed for the place. 

The design was reproduced by a number of potteries, and came to 
be known as the ‘Saint Nicholas’ pitcher. The pitchers for the hotel 
itself were made, principally, at the works of Houghwout & Co., at 
Greenpoint, Long Island, and, from the fact that pitchers of this 
‘Saint Nicholas’ pattern are frequently found bearing well-known old 
Brooklyn and New York names, which are not found in the neighbor- 
hood of Bennington, it would seem a fair inference that such pitchers 
should be attributed to the Greenpoint firm, and not to Bennington. 
In other words, in the case of Granite Ware presumably produced at 
Bennington, positive identification is virtually impossible, except on 
the basis of the known history of each piece. If one has a pitcher, a 
trinket-box, a cow-creamer, or any other piece of Granite Ware, which 
bears a name that is common in the Bennington neighborhood, and 
especially if one knows something of the history of the item, then one 
is entitled to call it Bennington with some assurance. On the other 
hand, a pitcher which is, in all other respects, identical with those made 
at Bennington, but bearing some name common to Brooklyn or 
New York, had better be tentatively attributed to the Greenpoint 
factory. The smallest of the pitchers illustrated here was given by 
Fenton’s daughter ‘Fanny’ to a friend. 

In connection with this ‘Saint Nicholas’ pitcher, it may be worth 
calling attention to a statement made by Barber to the effect that the 
Granite Ware pitchers of this model made at Bennington were sent to 
New York to be decorated.* This statement is wholly without founda- 


* Barber, op. cit., p. 442. 


164 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


tion in fact. During the whole period of the Fenton Pottery — includ- 
ing Lyman, Fenton & Co. and the United States Pottery Company — 
there was at Bennington one of the best china decorators in the coun- 
try, Theophilus Frey who had worked for twelve years at the Royal 
Sévres Porcelain Works in France. Why, then, should pitchers be 
sent to New York to be decorated? As a matter of fact, no such thing 
was done. 

The most elaborate, and altogether most beautiful, example of this 
type of ware ever made at the United States Pottery, so far as is 
known, is the jewel-casket illustrated by Plate XXIX. It was made 
at the pottery, and decorated by Theophilus Frey, and given to a 
young lady upon the occasion of her betrothal. It is now cherished 
by the daughter of the original owner. Although I have come across 
only one other piece of the kind, it seems to be a moral certainty 
that a good many others were made. Search among the waste-heaps 
of the pottery has disclosed numerous fragments of such boxes, in the 
‘biscuit’ state. It is quite likely that the use of the little figurine on 
the cover was unusual — an inspiration of the particular occasion. 
Altogether it is one of the loveliest things ever made at the Ben- 
nington potteries. 
~ I cannot conclude this description of the Granite Ware without 
some account of the colored banded pitchers, basins, and mugs that 
were made at the pottery. Although these are known to have been 
produced in large numbers, they are absolutely unidentifiable now, 
even by the most expert. No marked specimen has ever been found, 
to my knowledge. In shape and coloring these pieces are precisely like 
those that have been turned out by numerous English and German 
potters, and are, in fact, still being made. From William G. Leake, 
who worked in the Bennington pottery as a boy, and made the ‘snips’ 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 165 


or pouring lips for these pitchers, I secured the only authentic example 
that I know of. 

Starting from the top the decoration of this consists of a narrow 
black band or stripe, rather less than an eighth of an inch wide. A 
still narrower white stripe separates this from a wide gray band or 
stripe, little more than one and one half inches in width. Then come 
alternate white and black stripes, and then a broad band of blue, about 
two and three quarters inches in depth. Then come narrow rings, 
white, black, white, followed by a band of gray, about one and one 
half inches, followed in turn by narrow white and black stripes. Mr. 
Leake is authority for the statement that this ware was called ‘Banded 
Granite.’ Satisfied as I am that no human being could possibly 
identify the Bennington product with certainty, or distinguish it 
from similar earthenware made in other places, I have given this 
description of it for no other reason than to make the list reasonably 


complete. 


V. Common ‘Slip’ Covered Red Ware 

It will probably startle and shock not a few students of our ceramic 
history, and even more collectors, to be told that, at the Fenton 
potteries in Bennington, where so much ware of a high standard was 
made, pitchers and vases of crude red earthenware covered with ‘slip’ 
were also manufactured. I confess that the discovery was something 
of a shock to me. Searching along the banks of the stream near the 
site of the old pottery, where much of the débris used to be dumped, I 
was astonished to find, along with fragments of other wares — broken 
pieces of Rockingham, Parian, and so on — several bits which were 
undeniably of red earthen body covered with brown ‘slip,’ the 
surface of the latter being finer, however, than is usually found in the 


166 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


similarly made old pots and pans of an earlier day. Of course, finding 
the pieces in that locality did not prove that the ware had been made 
there, though finding them in association with the other fragments, 
in quantity, tended to create a presumption to that effect. 

Later, I came across in Bennington, a pitcher which the owner was 
positive had been made at the United States Pottery, an uncle having 
brought it from the works at the time he was employed there. This 
pitcher was of the same shape and design as one of the best, and also 
best known, of the white porcelain pitchers made at the United States 
Pottery — the Pond Lily design. There could be no mistake about it: 
beyond all question, it was red earthenware covered with a ‘slip’ of a 
deep brown color, almost like chocolate. The question was, whether 
this specimen was just a ‘freak piece,’ perhaps the work of some 
boy, or a sample of a regulation type of ware. That the latter is the 
case now seems to be assured. Other pieces of the same type turn up 
from time to time. I have a beer-pitcher in this ware of the Pond Lily 
design which was used for years in the barroom of the Stark House, a 
local hostelry. 

My friend, Mr. George S. McKearin, of Hoosick Falls, New York, 
has in his collection three pieces of this ware. One is a pitcher of the 
Pond Lily design referred to. Where it has been chipped, especially on 
the edges of the raised design, and where it has been broken and 
repaired, it is quite easy to see the red earthenware body, which is 
both crude and coarse. Another pitcher, of identical quality and 
appearance, bears the well-known Paul and Virginia design in relief. 
This piece is stamped with the familiar ‘ribbon’ stamp of the United 
States Pottery Company. Finally, in many respects most interesting 
of the three, occurs a Paul and Virginia vase, partly in the ‘biscuit’ 
state. The inside has been covered with brown ‘slip’; the outside is 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 167 


uncovered. A piece broken out of the bottom rim shows plainly that 
the body is red earthenware, of a very coarse and crude quality. This 
has been washed over with a thin wash of yellowish clay, but whether 
as a preparation for the ‘slip’ — which seems quite unlikely — or as 
an experiment for some other purpose — perhaps long after the piece 
left the pottery — there is no means of knowing. 

This ‘slip’ ware, is well remembered by some of the older residents. 
Nothing further need be said about it here. It is irredeemably ugly, 
and has nothing on earth to recommend it. Had it been produced 
some sixty years earlier, when the industry was in its infancy here in 
New England, we might regard it differently. It would then be possi- 
ble to discern it as a praiseworthy step in the direction of a conscious 
quest for beauty, and away from the crude standards of the time. As 
it is, one can only look upon it as an ugly example of atavism. It must 
however, be added to the list of the varieties and types of ware pro- 
duced at the Bennington pottery under Christopher Webber Fenton. 


3 VI. Flint Ware 

This little known Bennington product must not be confounded with 
the Rockingham and the brilliantly colored Flint Enamelled wares 
that bear the well-known impressed mark — Fenton’s Enamel Patented 
1849, which it does not resemble in the least. Flint Ware was used 
principally, if not exclusively, in the manufacture of insulators for 
telegraph wires, in which the United States Pottery Company 
specialized. It was composed of a vitreous body containing a large 
percentage of calcined flint, and was of great hardness. It was re- 
garded as a remarkable non-conductor of electricity, and from it 
several types of insulators were made. Occasionally specimens are 
found — crude, ugly, heavy objects, but rather interesting in their 


a es 


168 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


construction, nevertheless. Historical interest is the only claim that 
the Flint Ware has to our attention, and the product is mentioned here 
solely in order that the record may be as complete as possible. 


VII. Rockingham 

One sign of the dawn of the millennium will be the general recogni- 
tion by amateur collectors and by dealers in antiques of the fact that 
Rockingham, as applied to pottery in this country, is the name of a 
type of ware, commonly made by potters in many parts of the country, 
including the Bennington potteries of both Fenton and his associates 
and of the various Nortons. It is not the name of the product of a 
particular pottery or maker. This common and familiar ware with a 
yellow body and mottled or splotched brown glaze, sometimes of 
several tones, which give it a resemblance to tortoise shell, would seem 
to present no great problem to collector or dealer; but it does, never- 
theless. 

On the one hand, there are the persons who think that every piece 
of ware of this general type must be Bennington, and who, in conse- 
quence, ask ridiculously high prices for nondescript rubbish. Once it 
becomes known that one is ‘collecting Bennington,’ people write from 
‘all sorts of places offering for sale what they regard as choice speci- 
mens. Often, of course, it is possible for the experienced collector to tell 
from their descriptions what these ‘choice specimens’ are, and to make 
intelligent decisions. Quite as often, however, the descriptive powers 
of the writers are so limited that no such decision is possible. There 
is consequent waste of time and energy all around. Unfortunately, 
the worst sinners in this respect are found among antique dealers of a 
certain type — folk who have no real knowledge of antiques, beyond 
the merest smattering, in which misinformation and information are 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 169 


jumbled together, and who are either unable or unwilling to learn. 
Fortunately, this type is being replaced by a much higher and better 
type. 

On the other hand, there are the persons who submit specimens or 
descriptions and photographs and ask, ‘Is this Bennington, or is it 
Rockingham?’ or who complain, ‘I bought this for Bennington, and 
now I am told that it is Rockingham.’ These and similar inquiries 
and statements are quite common. When one answers, as one some- 
times must, that the specimen submitted is both Bennington and 
Rockingham, that it is Bennington Rockingham, the result is usually 
to make the person so advised grasp thereafter at every bit of Rock- 
ingham and label it ‘Bennington.’ It would, therefore, seem to be 
worth while to attempt here to define and describe Rockingham with 
greater care and detail than is customary. 

In the first place, then, it should be borne in mind that the type of 
ware commonly known in this country as ‘Rockingham’ is not at all 
what is meant by ‘Rockingham’ as that term is used in English books 
and treatises upon ceramics. In the British Museum there is a wonder- 
ful exhibit of Rockingham, as that term is used in England. It consists 
in large part of some of the most elaborately modelled and exquisitely 
decorated figures ever produced in England by the potter’s art. Fine 
specimens of this Rockingham are among these rare and costly 
treasures which few collectors except the very rich can ever hope to 
possess. | 

This ware is a soft paste porcelain which derives its name from the 
fact that it was made at Swinton, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, 
England, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, at a pottery 
which was established under the direction and patronage of the then 
Marquis of Rockingham. 


170 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


In 1807 this pottery passed to the famous firm of the two Bramelds 
who operated it until 1842, when the works were closed. The Marquis 
of Rockingham employed the services of the foremost artists of the — 
time to design and decorate the wares made, which bore the Rocking- 
ham crest, a griffin, as their distinguishing mark. After the works 
passed to the Bramelds the griffin mark was still retained, with the 
addition of the words Rockingham Works, Brameld, underneath it. 

It may be wondered what this elaborate ware can have in common 
with the cheap brown glazed pottery that bears the same name in this 
country. The answer is as follows: In the nature of the case, the wares 
made at Swinton under the patronage of the Marquis of Rockingham 
were costly and commanded a limited market. In periods of depres- 
sion the demand for them immediately fell off. On the occasion of such 
a depression, rather than have the works shut down and the employees 
discharged, the good Marquis made arrangements for the manufacture 
of a cheaper line of goods — in particular, cheap tea-pots for common 
everyday use. These tea-pots were made of a common yellowish clay 
body, covered with a brown glaze. In allusion to the name of the Mar- 
quis, the workmen among themselves called these tea-pots ‘Rock’s 
pots,’ ‘Rockies,’ ‘Rocky’s pots,’ and soon. As a matter of fact, the 
manufacture of this cheap ware, begun in the circumstances here out- 
lined, developed into a substantial business that lasted at Swinton for 
many years, during all of which time the foregoing nicknames re- 
mained in use. 

When, in the middle of the nineteenth century, English potters who 
had settled in this country began to make ware similar to ‘Rocky’s 
pots,’ cheap ware of a common yellow body covered with brown 
glaze, it was quite natural for the nickname they gave it to be brought 
into general use — but in its refined form, Rockingham. Almost 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE I7I 


every general pottery in the eastern part of the United States, in 
operation from 1835 to 1885, or later, made Rockingham Ware, as 
the term is understood in this country. Of course, differences in the 
clay used in the bodies and differences in the formulas of the glazes 
used by the various potteries are reflected in the wares produced. 
Nevertheless, any pottery of a common yellow body covered with the 
typical brown glaze is properly called Rockingham — in our American 
sense. 

I trust that the reader will not overlook the significance of the words 
‘typical brown glaze,’ used above, for it is the distinguishing char- 
acteristic of Rockingham that the color 1s mixed in the glaze. Ordinary 
glazes are not colored; the glaze is transparent and colorless and such 
color as may be needed is applied to the body before glazing. In 
Rockingham the color is always mixed in the glaze. The brown is 
derived from manganese, but sometimes it is mixed with a small 
amount of umber, to give additional richness of tone. 

Now, it does not matter, profoundly, whether the body of the ware 
is dipped in the Rockingham glaze, or whether the coating is applied 
with a sponge, a brush, or a stick, the ware so glazed is Rockingham. 
Different potteries applied the glaze differently, and, even in the same 
pottery, pieces of different character frequently had the glaze dif- 
ferently applied. The method most in use from 1847 to 1865 was 
‘spattering’ with the paddle. The workman whose job it was to 
glaze the ware stood beside a tub containing the ready-mixed glaze. 
Holding in his left hand the piece to be decorated, and a long flat piece 
of wood called a ‘paddle’ in his right, he would dip the paddle into 
the mixture, strike it lightly against the side of the tub, to remove the 
surplus glaze, and then, holding the article just below the top of the 
tub and over the liquid, he would keep rapping the paddle against the 


172 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


edge of the tub, so as to spatter the varnish-like liquid upon the piece, 
which he turned the while. 

He pleased his own fancy as he worked. If he thought that it would - 
look better to produce a streaky effect by applying the glaze more 
heavily in some places than in others and letting it run down, he did 
that; if he fancied that his ware would look better to be spotted more 
or less regularly, he carried out that idea. If he sought to obtain a 
light tone, he used less color, or, what amounted to the same thing, a 
thinner coating of glaze. Then there were accidental results, the ef- 
fects of haste, carelessness, poorly mixed glaze, and so on. This will 
explain why, almost literally, no two pieces of Rockingham are 
exactly alike. | 

It should be quite easy for any one to understand that the final 
appearance of a piece of Rockingham may be greatly influenced by 
other factors than the whim or skill of the workman applying the 
glaze. In the first place, a dark, coarse, muddy body and a body that 
is light, clear, free from impurities and relatively fine, treated with the 
same glaze, and in exactly the same way, will look quite different when 
finished. In the second place, if different processes of firing are re- 
sorted to, then, even if the quality of the body is the same, the final 
appearance of the pieces will differ. In a good many potteries the 
‘one-fire’ process was used. This means that the green ware was 
first air-dried so as to be capable of being handled, and the glaze was 
applied to it in that state, before firing. When glazed it was placed 
in the kiln and baked or fired, glaze and body thus being fired at one 
and the same time. 

In other potteries the ‘two-fire’ process was used. This means 
that the green ware was first fired, before any glaze was applied. 
When so treated, it became what is known as ‘biscuit.’ In that state 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 173 


it was given — by immersion —a coat of ‘gloss’ or under-glaze. 
This was a quick-drying preparation which covered the entire biscuit 
body with a glossy film. This gloss did not require firing or exposure 
to heat, for it dried in the air very quickly. Next, upon this was im- 
posed the brown glaze, after which the piece so treated received its 
second firing. Anybody who can understand that a priming coat will 
greatly improve the appearance of the paint that is laid over it should 
be able to understand this simple technical exposition of glazing. 

With this in mind, let the collector or the student compare one of 
the Rockingham pitchers marked Norton & Fenton, referred to in an 
earlier chapter, with one of the finer examples of Rockingham made at 
the best period of the United States Pottery. If he will look at the 
bottom of the former, he will at once see that there is no evidence of 
the extra coat of gloss, the under-glaze, or priming coat. He will 
notice, also, that the glaze is uniform, not irregular and ‘mottled’ in 
effect. The glaze was applied by dipping. On turning to the later 
specimen, and examining it in the same way, he will observe that the 
evidence of the under-glaze is unmistakable. He will also see that the 
glaze is not uniform in tone as in the other case, but presents varia- 
tions which plainly indicate another mode of application. 

Naturally, the ware produced by the two-fire effect is more brilliant 
than the other. There is a greater ‘depth’ to the color, to use a 
phrase of art criticism. Even if the two pieces had been glazed at the 
same time and from the same tub of glaze, the relative superiority of 
the twice-fired specimen would be apparent. When the United States 
Pottery had failed and closed, sundry attempts were made to start it 
up again, and an effort was made to hold the market by producing 
Rockingham more cheaply. With that object in view the ‘one-fire’ 
process was resorted to. Examples of Rockingham so made are 


174 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


common, and they are all inferior to that which had been produced in 
the best days of the United States Pottery. 

It must not be understood, however, that the quality of the glaze 
used had no effect upon the ware. That would be nonsense. Every 
pottery making Rockingham had its own formula, or, rather, every 
glaze-mixer had his own formula, which he carefully guarded. A good 
deal of mystery was made about the composition of these glazes, much 
of which was pure bunkum. It is easy to understand that the glaze- 
maker would surround his formula with all the mystery and secrecy 
possible, for that was part of his working capital. But if a glaze-maker 
left his position it was usually possible to obtain in his place another 
whose product was quite similar. It might be a little better or a little 
inferior, but in the main the change was not a serious matter. There 
was very little difference in the constituents of the numerous Rocking- 
ham glazes used; and such differences as there were took the form of 
varying proportions of the same constituents. A little more calcined 
flint or a little less, as the case might be, would give a harder or a 
softer glaze — and so on. 

The Fenton Potteries at Bennington made an immense variety of 
things in Rockingham Ware: Toby mugs, ‘Coachmen’ and ‘Monk’ 
bottles, pitchers of many sizes, patterns, and designs, inkstands, 
cracker-jars, mugs, door-knobs, name-plates for doors, soap-dishes, 
bed-pans, cuspidors, ‘Tulip’ vases, and numerous other articles. 
The famous hound-handle pitchers, most of the cow-creamers, jelly- 
moulds, and baking-dishes were almost always made in Rockingham. 
Mottled poodle dogs, and a great many of the tubular candlesticks 
were made of Rockingham. 

Even when marked with the familiar stamp of Fenton’s Enamel, 
pieces might be, and often were, simple Rockingham; and, in point of 





VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 175 


fact, the stamp had no legitimate place upon them, for they were not 
protected or covered by the patent to which that stamp referred. The 
demonstration of this must be left to the section on Flint Enamel. It 
is a notable fact, however, that the mark referred to is the only one 
that was used upon Bennington Rockingham Ware during the years 
that the United States Pottery was in operation. For the most part 
such ware was unmarked; otherwise it was marked in a misleading 
manner, which, in these days, would be regarded as illegal and might 
probably subject the responsible parties to prosecution for misbrand- 
ing their wares and making unlawful use of a registered patent mark. 

Pitkin * calls attention to an octagonal water-cooler in Rockingham, 
marked Fenion’s Works, Bennington, Vermont. As already noted, I 
have one like it in my collection. I have to confess that I do not know 
how to regard these pieces. It is quite possible that they were really 
made at the United States Pottery and were marked with the earlier 
Fenton mark. This might be due to purpose, the whim of some work- 
man, for example, or to some accidental cause. Many of the old moulds 
and stamps of the earlier period were preserved in the new pottery. 
Indeed, when the United States Pottery buildings were torn down, in 
1874, moulds with the stamp of Fenton’s Works were found. It is not 
difficult to believe that these may have been used at various late dates, 
especially when a workman took a fancy to make a particular piece 
for himself or for friends. On the other hand, it is quite possible that 
such pieces were really made at the earlier period when Fenton was in 
business upon his own account. In that case, one has only to compare 
a specimen with the Rockingham produced by Norton & Fenton to 
realize the great advance that was made by Fenton in the manufacture 
of this ware. 


* Pitkin, op. cif., p. 24. 


176 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


For several reasons it is unfortunate that the name Rockingham 
ever came to be applied to this ware, which at its best development 
is identical with the ‘Mottled’ or ‘Tortoiseshell’ Ware of the English 
potters. The latter term is admirably descriptive of it, and it is quite 
a common thing for people who know absolutely nothing about the 
subject to write that they have pieces of old pottery ‘that look like 
tortoiseshell.’? This fact alone proves the fitness of the name. Rock- 
ingham must always be both a misnomer and a cause of confusion. 
Tortoiseshell Ware was made by some of the most famous of the 
English potters — Josiah Wedgwood, Thomas Whieldon and Josiah 
Spode, among them — and some of it was of a standard of excellence 
never attained at Bennington. At the same time, it is worth remem- 
bering that the so-called Rockingham of Bennington is neither more 
nor less than an American copy of English Tortoiseshell Ware. 

The amateur collector who has followed the discussion thus far will 
naturally wish to know how the unmarked Rockingham Ware of 
Bennington may be identified and distinguished from other makes of 
Rockingham. It was long ago remarked that the Tortoiseshell Ware 
of the various English makers was rarely marked, making authorita- 
tive attribution almost impossible. While some of the Rockingham 
made at Bennington, and some of that made at other American 
potteries, was marked, much of that made at Bennington — perhaps 
the greater part — was unmarked. The same is true of most of the 
American potteries of the period. The answer, therefore, to the 
question of the amateur collector is that there is no absolute and un- 
failing standard, or test, by means of which such identification can 
be made. In a general way, one who is sufficiently familiar with the 
Bennington ware can distinguish it from most — although not all — 


other Rockingham, by its quality. High-grade Rockingham made 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 177 


elsewhere is likewise generally identifiable by those familiar with it. 

The greater part of the unmarked Rockingham pitchers, mugs, and 
similar articles, which are picked up in various parts of the country, 
are inferior in quality to the best grade of the Bennington product, 
both in body and glaze. I have already indicated wherein the superior- 
ity of the Bennington product lies. All that is necessary to add, by 
way of warning to the amateur collector, is that this applies only to the 
better class of Rockingham Ware made at Bennington. A great deal 
of inferior Rockingham was made at Bennington in the form of pie- 
plates, baking-dishes, and the like, which no man can distinguish from 
a mass of similar ware made in scores of other places. Except in so far 
as one aiming at a comprehensive collection completely illustrative 
of every phase of the Bennington potteries must desire to secure a 
specimen or two, this latter ware should be regarded as worthless rub- 
bish, with nothing to recommend it. 

The collector may not, however, rely upon the quality test alone, for 
examples of Rockingham made at other American potteries are some- 
times picked up which are in no wise inferior to the Bennington prod- 
uct, and which are so similar to the latter in the appearance of both 
body and glaze that they cannot be definitely distinguished from it. 

I have in mind, as an example, some of the early work of Bennett & 
Brother, of Pittsburgh, and later of Baltimore, made in 1846. Not only 
is it not inferior to the best grade of Bennington Rockingham, but it 
is so like it as to be capable of deceiving a fairly expert judge. In 
addition to the quality test, therefore, the collector must rely, to no 
small extent, upon his knowledge of authenticated Bennington de- 
signs and patterns. It is here that he must be keen and must pay 
sharp attention to details. 

In the case of the well-known hound-handle pitcher, for example, 


178 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


the Bennington model differs sufficiently from others of the same 
general type to make its identification fairly easy, notwithstanding 
that it was never marked, so far as we know. From time to time, I 
have heard rumors of examples of this pitcher bearing the Bennington 
mark, but in no single instance has investigation sustained the rumor. 
I have received letters from several people positively assuring me that 
they possessed one or more of these pitchers bearing a Bennington 
trade-mark. In some cases they have described the mark with such 
detail that I have felt certain that, at last, I had discovered what 
almost every collector has sought. In every such case I have secured 
the piece ‘on approval’ — and have invariably found that the mark 
was not that of any Bennington firm, but of other manufacturers. 
In all such instances, moreover, the hound has differed quite materi- 
ally from the rather grotesque and un-doglike animal whose body 
makes the handle of the Bennington pitcher. 

A more difficult matter is the positive identification of Bennington 
cow-creamers. So far as is known, these were never marked; certainly 
no marked example is known to exist. The manufacture of cow- 
creamers was in no sense an exclusive Bennington specialty. Such 
pieces were made at a number of American potteries from 1845 to 
1885, and later. Large quantities were also made in England. Some 
of those made in Rockingham Ware at various American potteries — 
Jersey City, South Amboy, Baltimore, and Trenton, among others — 
are so like the Bennington model that the differences are easily over- 
looked. All these cow-creamers are virtually of the same size, differ- 
ences in this particular being as marked between absolutely authenti- 
cated Bennington examples as between those made at Bennington and 
those made elsewhere. These differences are due, principally, I think, 
to inequalities in shrinkage, caused by variations in the quality of the 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 179 


clay used in the bodies, in the degree of wetness when moulded, in 
the firing, and so forth. 

To sum up the whole matter as it relates to the cow-creamers, the 
collector must carefully study an authenticated model, learn its special 
and distinctive features, and firmly reject whatever is offered him 
which does not possess these distinctive features. Caveat emptor is the 
motto to be borne in mind. It does not make the slightest difference 
that the cow-creamer offered is known to have come from Bennington, 
even from ‘an old Bennington family.’ Offhand I could name nearly a 
dozen much-prized cow-creamers reposing upon the shelves of friends 
and neighbors of mine, and proudly regarded by them, which are 
‘Bennington cows’ only by adoption. Once, to my knowledge, a good 
many years ago, a consignment of Rockingham cow-creamers was 
imported from England and sold in and around Bennington. And 
there is every reason to believe that long before that, soon after the 
close of the United States Pottery in 1858, the market for cow- 
creamers which had been developed in New England was supplied 
from without. 

The foregoing résumé of the chief characteristics of Rockingham 
Ware in general, and of Bennington Rockingham in particular, should 
prove helpful to the student and to the collector who feels the need of 
a guiding hand through a way that is beset with difficulties and snares. 
Little more can helpfully be added. At the risk of indulging in weari- 
some repetition, I close this lengthy section with the admonition to 
the collector to make resolute choice between two courses: either to 
confine himself to the collection of marked pieces — in which case he 
will be obliged to forego much of interest and value — or to study 
carefully the details of well-authenticated specimens of each model, 


together with the technical points herein outlined, and to reject what- 


180 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


ever does not conform to the standard which this study will erect in 
his own mind. Of course, he will make mistakes even then — but such 
mistakes are no small part of the pleasure of collecting. 
® 
VIII. Flint Enamel Ware 

The patent which Christopher Webber Fenton obtained in Novem- 
ber, 1849, protecting a certain process of applying color to pottery in 
connection with glaze, has already been discussed in an earlier chapter, 
as well as in the preceding section of the present chapter, in connec- 
tion with our discussion of Rockingham Ware. It is not necessary to 
go over the same matter in detail, the briefest recapitulation of the 
essential facts being quite sufficient. If the reader will take the 
trouble to read the ‘Specification’ upon the basis of which the patent 
was issued,* no argument will be necessary to prove that the patent 
had nothing whatever to do either with the composition of the body 
itself or with that of the glaze used. The method was exclusively one 
of applying color in connection with the glaze. It is clearly set forth 
in the specification that the process can be used upon any kind of 
body, and it is quite plain, though not so explicitly stated, that it can 
be used in connection with any kind of glaze. 

As early as 1846, Bennett & Brother, already referred to, had, with 
great distinction and success, used colors under a glaze containing a 
large percentage of flint. Because of the colors used, and the general 
resemblance of the result of enameling, this glaze was called ‘Flint 
Enamel.’ The colors were applied to the under-glaze with a brush, 
sponge, or rag, the workman placing the colors in precisely the 
manner and form he wished them to assume in the finished piece. 
When the color was dry, the piece was glazed and fired. 

* See Appendix II, p. 250. 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 181 


Fenton’s patent covered an entirely different process: The article 
to be colored — or ‘enamelled’ — was taken, in the biscuit state, and 
first given a coat of transparent glaze. It was now ready for the appli- 
cation of colors. These, instead of being in liquid or paste form, were 
in powder, and, ‘with a small box perforated with holes,’ were ‘thrown 
or sprinkled on through the holes over the surface of the article in 
quantity to produce deeper or lighter shades,’ as desired, ‘leaving a 
part of the surface for the body of the article to show through in spots.’ 
When this was done, the piece was glazed and fired in the usual way. 
Since the colors employed were all of a metallic nature, the intense 
heat of firing fused them and caused them to flow and mingle with 
the under-part of the glaze, and, to a less extent — varying with the 
nature of the color and the degree of heat — to penetrate and mingle 
with the glaze itself. Anybody who will examine closely a typical 
piece of this colored Bennington ware, in which there are greens, 
yellows, blues, and browns of various tones, will see immediately that 
the colors have run down and spread; and he will be able to tell by the 
direction in which the colors have run exactly how the piece stood in 
the kiln during the firing. 

As was pointed out in the section on Rockingham, it is obvious that 
it is a misuse of the protective mark of the Flint Enamel patent to 
apply it to articles not so colored. In particular, it is a misuse of the 
mark to apply it to articles glazed with Rockingham glaze, in which 
the coloring is part of the glaze itself. Pitkin, notwithstanding that 
he clearly and accurately explains the nature of Fenton’s patent, 
utterly failed to apply that knowledge to his classification of the 
various types of Bennington ware. The Pottery’s slipshod and loose 
method of using the 1849 mark — which was in keeping with careless 
and slipshod ways manifested in other directions — puzzled him as it 


182 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


has puzzled many others. Finding the patent flint enamel mark upon 
certain pieces of Rockingham, and unable to escape the obvious fact 
that some Rockingham is much superior in its glaze to other pieces 
bearing the same name, due, in part at least, to the use of more 
calcined flint in the glaze, Pitkin divides Rockingham into two cate- 
gories. He refers to ‘Rockingham Ware (not flint enamelled)’ and 
‘Rockingham (Flint Enamelled).’? * Thereby he effectually destroys 
the value of his description of the Flint Enamel Ware. Elsewhere he 
distinguishes between Flint Enamel Ware and Rockingham, and, 
although the distinction is not quite accurately stated, it is reason- 
ably clear. He says: ‘The “Flint Enamelled” ware... was similar 
to Rockingham, but harder and more brilliant in appearance, and was 
made in three colors, black, mottled with yellow, olive and yellow, 
with red, blue and green mixed.’ f 

We shall never get away from the confusion which has enshrouded 
all the discussions concerning Bennington pottery unless we rigorously 
distinguish between ‘flint glaze’ and ‘ Flint Enamel,’ and confine the 
use of the latter term to the ware in which various metallic colors are 
used independently, and are not mixed in the glaze itself, as in the 
case of the manganese used in Rockingham glaze as a component part 
of the glaze itself. In ceramic history the term ‘enamel’ has almost 
always been associated with the use of colors for decorative effect, 
and that association should be maintained throughout. It is obvious 
that some such term as ‘Flint Rockingham Glaze’ can be used with 
advantage to describe that superior type of Rockingham to which 
reference has been made, but to call it ‘Rockingham, Flint Enamelled,’ 
or ‘Flint Enamel Rockingham,’ is equivalent to destroying the pos- 
sibility of intelligent classification. 


* Pitkin, op. cit., pp. 43-44. The peculiar use of capitals is Pitkin’s. 
+ Idem, pp. 39-40. The arithmetic in the passage quoted needs revision! 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 183 


Although Fenton’s patent covered only the particular method of 
applying colors which we have described, the older method of applying 
color by means of a rag’ or sponge was undoubtedly resorted to in 
some cases. This would still produce ‘flint enamel,’ of course, but it 
would not be Fenton’s patented process. There was nothing in his 
patent which gave him an exclusive right to that trade term. Indeed, 
that term does not occur in the patent, the words used being ‘ Fenton’s 
Enamel’ — quite another matter. I have in my collection pieces in 
which it is evident that the colors under the glaze were carefully 
‘spotted in,’ presumably with a piece of rag. Where the colors were 
laid on in definite shapes and patterns, they must have been applied 
in paste form. There is no possibility that powdered oxides were sprin- 
kled in any such fashion, for the colors show none of the irregular 
running and spreading under the intense heat such as occurs with 
those applied according to the patented process. 

We hear a great deal about the ‘lost art’ of the Bennington glaze. 
What people mean when they talk of this is not the glaze but the 
combination of the glaze and colors. Even so, this ‘loss’ is no more 
than an old wives’ tale. There is nothing in connection with any 
phase of the manufacture of any type of Bennington pottery which 
may properly be viewed as a lost art. Every phase of every process 
is quite well known, local gossip to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Of course, students of ceramic history will recognize that the ‘lost art’ 
myth is constantly cropping out in all parts of the world. When 
William De Morgan made his tiles and vases decorated with colored 
lustres like those used by the Persians and the Syrians in the Middle 
Ages, there was a profound sensation in some circles because he was 
supposed to have ‘found’ the secret of an ancient art that had been 
‘lost.’ He used to tell with great gusto how horrified his workmen were 


184. THE FENTON POTTERIES 


when he freely made public the methods by which those rich lustres 
were obtained. If ever the art had been ‘lost,’ he used to say, it had 
been too often rediscovered for any particular glory to be due to him- 
self. y 

We know that the richness of the browns in the Rockingham made 
in Bennington under Fenton’s management was derived from the 
oxides of manganese found in Bennington and Stamford in connection 
with the local hematite ores; and we know the effect of a mixture of the 
oxides of manganese and iron when fused together. We know that a 
mixture of oxide of manganese and cobalt, in proper proportions, will 
give a rich black; that different proportions of the same ingredients 
will give a blue so dark as to appear almost black. We know that 
oxide of uranium will give yellow; that oxide of cobalt will give blue; 
oxide of copper, green. There is no mystery about these circumstances 
— either chemical or mechanical — and if any manufacturer wanted 
to revive the manufacture of this ware he would not find it a task of 
extraordinary difficulty to evolve formulas which would substantially 
reproduce the most characteristic qualities of the Bennington product. 

So much of the Flint Enamel Ware is marked that its identification 
is easy and calls for no special advice. It frequently happens that the 
mark is barely discernible, or is decipherable only in part, by reason of 
the fact that the stamp impressed into the clay has been partly or 
wholly filled in with glaze and thus largely obliterated. In not a few 
cases, indeed, such obliteration is complete. Then, too, many pieces 
were altogether unmarked. 

Unless we accept the explanation of a rather slipshod way of work- 
ing, it is virtually impossible to find any theory which will conform to 
known facts, and, at the same time, will explain the use and non-use of 
the pottery mark. Book flasks are unmarked in ninety-nine cases out 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 185 


of every hundred; but occasionally one is found bearing the small oval 
stamp of the United States Pottery Company. The stamp is generally 
on an edge of the book, but occasionally it appears on the side. Marks 
disfigure the book flasks in every case, and that would seem to be a 
good reason for the general practice of omitting them. There is no ap- 
parent reason, however, why one pitcher of a particular pattern and 
design should be marked and another, identical with it in all other 
respects, be unmarked. That the lions without bases should be un- 
marked is easily understood, for they offer no particularly good place 
for a mark, though one could have been placed on the bottom of the 
large ball, of course. On the other hand, there is no obvious reason 
why the lions on bases should be sometimes marked and sometimes 
unmarked. 

The absence of a mark from any characteristic piece of the Flint 
Enamel Ware, however, need not trouble the intelligent collector. 
The ware itself is almost unmistakable, and there is no lack of marked 
pieces which the cautious collector can use as standards to guide his 
decision. I do not know of any other American pottery so easily and 
surely identifiable. It is quite unlike the Rockingham in this respect. 
What is important to the student is the clear understanding of the 
distinction between Rockingham Ware and Flint Enamel Ware, and 
the development of a judgment independent of the patent mark of 


1849. 


IX. Scroddled Ware 
This is the ware which is sometimes also called ‘Lava’ and some- 
times (erroneously) ‘Marbled.’ Almost invariably the name which 
Fenton gave to it is misspelled ‘Scrodled’— and mispronounced 
accordingly. It is so misspelled by both Barber and Pitkin, and by 


186 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


nearly every other writer on the subject. I cannot recall a single 
article dealing with Bennington pottery in which the word is correctly 
spelled. The Standard Dictionary defines the verb ‘scroddle’ as fol- 
lows: ‘Towariegate, as pottery ware, in different colors by the use of 
various colored clays.’ This simple definition is itself almost a suf- 
ficient description of this ware. In its general appearance it somewhat 
resembles old-fashioned ‘marbled cake,’ irregular waving streaks of 
brown in two tones, light and dark, running through a cream-colored 
body. The intention was to imitate the general appearance of a certain 
type of lava — hence one of the names by which it was often called. 

This ware is, in every particular, identical with the Agate Ware of 
the eighteenth-century Staffordshire potters and of their successors in 
the early part of the nineteenth century. Dr. Thomas Wedgwood, son 
of Thomas Wedgwood, of the Overhouse Works, at Burslem, Staf- 
fordshire, made it in great perfection. It was made also by Whieldon, 
who seems to have specialized in knife hafts for the cutlery trade of 
Sheffield, and by the famous John Dwight at Fulham. 

It is important to note that, whereas the name ‘ Marbled Ware’ has 
been extensively used in this country as a synonym for ‘Scroddled 
Ware’ or ‘Lava Ware,’ it is properly applied by English writers to 
quite a different type of ware. The amateur should make particular 
note of this important distinction: ‘Agate Ware’ is a perfectly proper 
and accurate synonym for ‘Scroddled Ware.’ On the other hand, 
‘Marbled Ware,’ which is used by Pitkin and others, is neither proper 
nor accurate, and strictly belongs to ware of another type altogether. 
‘Lava,’ ‘Scroddled,’ and ‘Agate’ are different names for a ware in 
which the lava-like effect is produced by the process of superimposing 
layers of clays of different colors, with the result that the coloration 
goes through the entire substance of the material. On the other hand, 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 187 


‘Marbled’ and ‘Veined’ are different names for a ware in which the 
‘marbling’ or ‘veining’ is done upon the surface only, sometimes by 
the use of slip and sometimes by the use of metallic oxides or other 
coloring agents. It is not difficult to understand this distinction. To 
put the matter another way: ‘Marbled Ware’ is ‘marbled’ on the 
surface much as old-fashioned-‘graining’ was done on woodwork, 
while ‘Scroddled Ware’ is produced by lamination. 

Scroddled Ware was made at Bennington in precisely the same 
manner as it was made in Staffordshire in the eighteenth century — 
by ‘wedging’ different-colored clays. A lump of clay, prepared much 
as for ordinary white body, was first thoroughly kneaded; upon this 
was pressed, or ‘wedged,’ a similar lump into which coloring matter 
derived from oxides of iron, manganese, and cobalt had been thor- 
oughly mixed; upon this, again, was placed still another lump, 
colored in the same manner, and of the same materials, but lighter 
or darker in shade, as required. The entire mass was then pounded 
and hammered, so that, when it was flattened out, a cross-section of 
it presented the appearance of stratified rock. Pounded back into 
a single cake, the mixed clay was sliced by drawing a strong wire 
through it. These slices were ‘thrown’ upon the wheel and worked or 
moulded into the desired forms. Treated to a clear glaze composed 
mainly of flint and feldspar, it was subjected to great heat for a 
much longer time than most other ware. From this description of the 
method of its manufacture, it will be understood that the marbled 
effect which appears upon the surface runs completely through the 
body, so that, if a piece is fractured or chipped, it is found to present 
the same characteristics throughout. It is exceedingly hard, and has 
often been called ‘the strongest ware made at the United States 
Pottery.’ The collector will do well, however, to remember that 


188 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


specimens of this ware are liable to prove brittle and to break with 
ease — its ‘strength’ notwithstanding. 

It was probably the least popular of all the wares made at the 
United States Pottery, and good specimens of it are relatively rare 
and uncommon. It was used chiefly in toilet sets and cuspidors, but 
occasionally more ornamental articles were manufactured from it, 
notably the ‘Tulip’ vases and cow-creamers. These were, perhaps, 
individual pieces made by workmen for themselves, and not pro- 
duced commercially. The principal pieces — wash bowls and pitchers, 
soap-dishes, toothbrush boxes, and cuspidors— were generally 
marked with a small elliptical stamp, impressed into the ware, bearing 
the words United States Pottery Co., Bennington, Vt. Vases, cow- 
creamers, door-knobs, and other articles were unmarked. 

Even at the cost of some repetition, the collector may be warned 
that this ware was quite commonly made in England in the first half 
of the nineteenth century, and it is therefore necessary to be on guard 
against confusing the English product with that of the Bennington 
pottery. English Lava Ware is often found in antique shops in an 
ornamental form, especially in combination with Parian figures. It is 
a safe rule to reject every piece in which this combination is found. I 
know of no such use of the Scroddled Ware at Bennington. It is true 
that, in the collection of Bennington pottery exhibited at the Pan- 
American Exposition, there occurred a piece in which a Parian figure 
was combined with a Lava or Scroddled background, but, since close 
inspection of this specimen revealed the mark of an English maker, 
no more need be said about it. 

It is perhaps of greater practical importance to the collector to be 
warned against a widely prevalent belief that Scroddled Ware was 
made at no other American pottery than Bennington; that it was 


VARIETIES AND TYPES OF WARE MADE 189 


distinctively a product of the United States Pottery; and that any 
cuspidor, soap-dish, pitcher, bowl, vase, or other article in this ware 
which may be picked up can be definitely attributed to Bennington, 
whether marked or not. As a matter of fact, Scroddled Ware was 
produced at a number of American potteries during the third quarter 
of the nineteenth century. Although the ware never attained any 
popularity, there are still a good many pieces scattered about, most 
of which were not made at Bennington. When Enoch Wood, who had 
worked at Bennington for some time, went to Perth Amboy, New 
Jersey, and conducted the Hall Pottery there, he went into the man- 
ufacture of Scroddled Ware quite extensively. Door-knobs, pitchers, 
bowls, vases, and many other articles, he produced in this ware. 
Perhaps ninety per cent of the pieces of Scroddled Ware that I exam- 
ine appear to have come from this pottery. When Wood found that 
the New York dealers did not take kindly to the type, but preferred 
Rockingham, he went into the manufacture of the latter, William G. 
Leake taking charge of that department of the works. 

To the nine classes of ware enumerated and described in this chapter 
must be added the various types and grades of porcelain made at the 
Fenton Potteries, including the Parian Ware. The enumeration and 
description of these require a separate chapter. 


IV 
PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 


HE reader who has paid me the compliment of reading the 

foregoing pages with reasonable care will understand, with- 

out further discussion or explanation, the task I have set for 
myself in this chapter. It is neither more nor less than the establish- 
ment of a definite and intelligible classification for those Bennington 
wares which have heretofore been lumped together under the designa- 
tion of Parian, regardless of the fact that they are manifestly of dif- 
ferent types, and conform to no single standard. 

My major contentions are these: (1) that Parian is the name of a 
distinct type of hard porcelain, differing quite definitely and import- 
antly from all other hard porcelain; (2) that a great deal of the ware 
produced at Bennington which has heretofore been called Parian is, 
in fact, hard porcelain of another type, and not Parian; (3) that the 
dissimilar wares heretofore designated Parian should be differentiated 
according to their distinctive characteristics and scientifically re- 
classified as (a) hard-paste porcelain, (b) soft-paste porcelain, (c) 
Parian porcelain. 

This is not intellectual formalism. Still less is it a contention over 
‘mere names.” It is, in the first place, the first serious attempt to 
describe accurately the most important products of the Bennington 
potteries, and, in the second place, to simplify the whole business of 
identification as regards these Bennington wares. 

The purpose of this discussion, and of the entire volume, being to 
guide and assist the average collector, I am compelled to bear in mind 


that a collector’s interest in Bennington pottery and porcelain does 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 191 


not necessarily imply technical knowledge of the composition of the 
various wares, the manner of making them, or their exact relation to 
one another and to other wares. If one were writing for experts, much 
could be taken for granted that must here be explained. I shall try to 
avoid being too technical, or using unfamiliar terms. Without setting 
up as an expert authority, but simply as an amateur collector and 
student writing for fellow amateurs and students, I shall try to present 


the gist of the whole matter as concisely and simply as I can. 


THE CoMPOSITION OF PoRCELAIN 

First of all, then, what is porcelain? This is a question of fact, not of 
opinion. The Chinese were the first to make porcelain, and its compo- 
sition was long a jealously guarded secret. All that was generally 
known was that porcelain was a product of the potter’s' art com- 
pounded wholly or in part of clays, earths, or stones, or a combination 
of these; that it was exceedingly hard, strong, and durable, and that it 
was translucent, or semi-transparent. From the latter quality it was 
evident that porcelain possessed something of the essential character 
of glass; that in the substance of which it was composed there must be 
some part that was fusible. Of course, if all the materials had been 
fusible — and fused — the result would have been glass; had none 
been fusible — or fused — there would have been no translucence, 
but an opaque body, earthenware. Porcelain is, therefore, a distinct 
product, partaking of the qualities of both earthenware, or pottery, 
and of glass. It is related to both, and may be roughly defined as a 
product midway between them. 

The great French scientist Réaumur discovered the secret of the 
Chinese. He took some clay, which the Chinese called kaolin and a 
substance called petun-tse, and made some interesting experiments. 


192 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


He placed a small cake of each substance in a separate container and 
subjected them to intense heat. He found that the petun-tse fused 
completely — that is, it melted, and in that state became practically 
molten glass. The kaolin, on the other hand, instead of melting, be- 
came hard; it thoroughly petrified, and proved to be wholly non- 
fusible. The one was glass; the other pottery of the type we call 
stoneware. Next, Réaumur prepared a cake composed of equal parts 
of both substances and subjected it to the same intense heat. He 
found that the non-fusible kaolin became thoroughly permeated with 
the fusible — and fused — petun-tse. In other words, there was pro- 
duced an amalgam composed of a non-fusible mass of clay completely 
saturated with molten glass. Owing to the absorption of the glass by 
the clay, the mass baked hard. In this state it was found to be identi- 
cal with Chinese porcelain. It was semi-vitrified and semi-trans- 
parent. The secret of porcelain had been revealed. 

Concerning these two substances, kaolin and petun-tse, two import- 
ant facts should be noted here. The first is that neither of them is 
peculiar to China, both being found in great abundance in many 
countries. The second is that, notwithstanding the great difference 
in their properties, already explained, the two are closely related. 
Kaolin is a fine clay, a silicate of alumina, having its origin in the de- 
composition of the mineral feldspar, of which decomposition it is the 
residuum. Feldspar is one of the important constituents of granite, 
and kaolin is commonly found in valleys that are surrounded by 
granite. Petun-tse is also derived from the fine silicious matter of gran- 
ite. It is feldspar in a state of partial decomposition. The difference 
between the two may be summed up thus: kaolin is a clay, highly 
plastic; petun-tse is friable and, of course, non-plastic. The plastic 
substance is non-fusible; the non-plastic substance is fusible, owing to 
the amount of potash or soda that it contains. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 193 


Numerous experiments have proved that there could be no sub- 
stitute for kaolin in the manufacture of porcelain. On the other hand, 
substitutes for petun-tse can be easily found. Where the partially de- 
composed feldspar does not exist in quantity or condition for use, feld- 
spar in quartz form, crushed into a fine powder, is equally good. 
Finely powdered flint also answers the same purpose, and so will a 
mixture of powdered feldspar and flint. All of these materials exist in 
great abundance in many parts of the United States, but especially 
in the New England States. Nowhere in the world, perhaps, is there 
better kaolin than in Vermont, where the material is found in great 
abundance and of exceptional purity. 

Now that we know the principal properties of porcelain and the 
constitutents of which it is compounded, we are in a fair way to dis- 
tinguish it from earthenware, and from all other forms of pottery. It 
is hard, light, strong, and translucent. So much for its body. We must 
now tur our attention to another distinctive feature, namely, the 
nature of its glaze. In the case of every other kind of ware, when glaze 
is applied to a biscuit body the composition of the glaze is different 
from that of the body and contains some elements not contained in the 
latter. In the case of porcelain, however (with the exception of soft- 
paste porcelain, to be considered later), the glaze is of the same sub- 
stance as the body — powdered feldspar. Being of the same sub- 
stance, of the same composition and hardness, it becomes one with the 
body. The coat of glaze may be light or heavy, but, in either case, it 
becomes absolutely a part of the body. It cannot chip off or crack, for 
the simple reason that there are no inequalities of expansion and con- 
traction in body and glaze due to differences in the materials of which 
they are composed. | 

In all other glazed wares the glaze and the body being of different 


194 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


composition, of varying degrees of hardness, density, porosity, and so 
on, separation of the glaze from the body by peeling, chipping, or 
cracking is possible. The glaze can be scraped or filed off and the body 
revealed. In such wares the glaze is a coat of one composition imposed 
upon a body of another composition. This is not the case with por- 
celain. If a porcelain body in the biscuit were covered with ‘slip’ 
composed of other materials, or with a lead glaze, for example, the 
finished product would not be porcelain, but something else, and would 
have to be otherwise classified. 

In general, hard-paste porcelain is glazed by direct application of 
the glaze to the body. The biscuit piece is dipped into a vessel con- 
taining the glaze materials, and is then placed in the kiln for a second 
firing. This melts the glaze materials, and a thin varnish-like coating 
of glass is spread over the whole body. Sometimes, however, hard- 
paste porcelain is finished with a gloss, called a ‘smear glaze.’ This is 
not applied directly to the ware as a coating, but is obtained indirectly 
by evaporation. The inside of the seggar — the container in which the 
ware is held while in the kiln — is coated with glaze before being 
placed in the kiln. The greatest care is taken to see that the ware does 
not touch the seggar at any point. When the seggar becomes suffi- 
ciently hot, this glaze melts and, the seggar being closed, a vapor is 
created which surrounds the ware and ‘smears’ it. This gives to the 
surface a gloss or polish, rather than a glaze. It will be apparent to the 
reader that this does not affect the validity of what has been said about 
coating the biscuit with glaze directly applied. 

Such, then, is hard-paste porcelain. Ninety-five per cent of the 
porcelain produced at Bennington was of this variety, as is by far the 
largest part of all porcelain produced in America. It is therefore the 
type in which we are most interested. Soft-paste porcelain was made 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 195 


at Bennington, though not in large quantity. It has also been made 
at other American potteries from time to time. Such porcelain is 
characteristically English, however, and the greatest part of the soft 
porcelain made in the world, as well as the best, is produced in Eng- 
land. The English have been notably successful in the manufacture of 
this type of porcelain. 

The process of manufacturing this soft-paste porcelain differs from 
that employed in the manufacture of the hard variety. As a sub- 
stitute for petun-tse — instead of the powdered feldspar quartz and 
flint used in this country for hard porcelain — a mixture containing 
a large percentage of ground and calcined bone is used, the other ele- 
ments being ground flint, soda, borax, and oxide of tin. These mate- 
rials are fusible at a much lower temperature than are those employed 
in making hard porcelain. The kaolin is also mixed with other clays 
not generally used in this country. The fusible elements are first com- 
pounded and then mixed with the clays. The result is a porcelain 
body. It is translucent, like other porcelain. The body is softer, how- 
ever, and less vitreous than the body of hard porcelain. It is less com- 
pletely non-porous, and the texture of the body is less compact, being 
somewhat flaky. This soft-paste porcelain is usually glazed with a 
glaze containing lead, the components being borax, soda, and lead, 
though the latter is sometimes omitted and additional borax used. In 
this respect —its glazing — soft-paste porcelain differs radically 
from hard-paste porcelain. As the body and the glaze used are differ- 
ent in composition, and vary in their expansion and contraction, 
crackling, peeling, and chipping of the glaze are common. The glaze 
can be scratched through with the sharp point of a knife. 

It is necessary to warn the amateur at this point that the foregoing 
descriptions are of what may be called ‘standard’ examples of the two 


196 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


types of porcelain, and that a great deal of the porcelain made in this 
country and in Europe does not conform absolutely to either standard, 
but varies widely, the variations ranging all the way from the one 
standard to the other. Hardness and softness are relative terms, of 
course, like ‘lightness’ and ‘heaviness,’ and like many other terms 
which will suggest themselves to the mind of the reader. Some manu- 
facturers of hard porcelain use no calcined bone dust, some use a little, 
others use much, with the result that some makes of ‘hard’ porcelain 
are less hard than others. Sometimes, indeed, it is a matter of opin- 
ion, and not of fact, whether a piece of porcelain should be described 
as having a hard-paste body or a body of soft paste. One who is fairly 
expert will find no difficulty in distinguishing between hard-paste and 
soft-paste porcelains, when the specimens conform to the ‘standards’ 
above described. But there is probably no person expert enough to 
be able to distinguish with certainty, and to classify with absolute 
accuracy, the varying degrees of hardness exemplified in the numerous 
variations of porcelain bodies. 


Partan WARE 

We now come to Parian Ware. The first requisite to an intelligent 
judgment of this ware and its properties, its relation to and differences 
from other wares, is an accurate and authentic answer to the question, 
‘What is Parian?? To answer that question is our first task. 

(1) The name itself furnishes the first hint as to what the answer 
to our question must be. It is the name given to a new ware — pro- 
duced for the first time in England, in 1842, by Copeland, of Stoke-on- 
Trent — because of its close resemblance in appearance to Parian 
marble. The ware was, in fact, expressly designed to imitate Parian 
marble, both in appearance and in texture, and it was used principally 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 197 


for the reproduction of sculpture, well-known classic marble statues 
and bas-reliefs constituting the subjects. For this reason, it was also 
called ‘Statuary Ware’ — an important fact that should be borne well 
in mind. It would seem to follow from these considerations, concerning 
which there is not the slightest dispute or question, that objects which 
do not by their appearance or their texture suggest Parian marble, 
but are radically unlike it, may not properly be called Parian, and that 
the designation when applied to such objects is a misnomer. 

(2) The material in which this imitation of Parian marble was 
achieved was a hard porcelain, and it was invariably so described. 
Parian or Statuary Ware is, therefore, a hard porcelain which, in 
texture and appearance, closely resembles Parian marble. A porcelain 
which does not have this resemblance is not Parian; neither is any 
compound other than porcelain Parian, even though it may resemble 
Parian marble. Compounds of marble dust and plastic clays are used 
to reproduce statuary, and some of them closely resemble Parian mar- 
ble in texture and appearance; but they are not Parian Ware, since 
they are non-translucent and non-vitreous. 

The foregoing paragraphs comprehensively summarize the distin- 
guishing characteristics of Parian Ware, by which it may be de- 
finitely identified. There has never been any doubt in the mind of any 
responsible authority concerning these points. A few quotations will 
serve the twofold purpose of illustrating this and of giving the col- 
lector added assurance: 

The Standard Dictionary defines Parian Ware as follows: ‘ Parian- 
porcelain, a fine variety of hard porcelain used for statuettes and bas- 
reliefs: so called from its resemblance to Parian marble.’ 

The Encyclopedia Britannica speaks of ‘a special porcelain known 
as Parian,’ and says of it, ‘This in its finest expression was a “biscuit” 


198 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


porcelain used for the production of statuettes and groups rivalling 
the finest 18th century “‘biscuit” figures of Sévres and Derby.’ * 
Horace Greeley, in his little known work, Art and Industry at the 
Crystal Palace, New York,t makes quite clear the nature of Parian 
Ware. He speaks of the ‘introduction of statuary porcelain, or Parian 
figures,’ and calls it ‘a branch of porcelain manufacture,’ and ‘this 


imitation of marble,’ t and sums up with the following: 


We have lingered over the collections of Parian Ware with great pleasure, 
as the introduction of this material is destined to effect for statuary what 
electrotyping accomplishes in the harder metals; it facilitates the reproduc- 
tion of the works of the finest artists in a material less costly than marble, 
with their multiplication to any number of copies, and the elevation of the 
public taste in articles of fancy.§ 


It is plainly evident that Greeley held Parian to be a distinct type of 
porcelain, having, as its special and distinctive quality, a close re- 
semblance to marble, and the imitation of statuary as its principal use. 

In their elaborate and exhaustive volume, devoted to an illustrated 
descriptive and analytical account of the exhibits at the New York 
Exhibition of 1853-54, Silliman and Goodrich devote much attention 
to the exhibits of Parian Ware, both English and American.§ It is 
safe to say that more competent authorities have rarely discussed the 
subject. Their book is the most valuable work of its kind ever pub- 
lished in this country. These authors say that statuary porcelain, or 
Parian, is a true hard porcelain. Of the Bennington Parian exhibited 


* Encyclopedia Britannica (11th Edition), art. ‘Ceramics.’ 

+ Pitkin, op. cit., p. 40, refers to this exhaustive book as ‘an article in the Mew York Trib- 
une.’ 

¢ Greeley, op. cit., p. 118. 

§ Greeley, op. cit., p. 119. 

q The World of Science, Art and Industry Illustrated by Examples in the New York Exhibi- 
tion, 1853-54. Edited by Professor B. Silliman, Jr., and C. R. Goodrich, Esq. New York: 
G. P. Putnam and Company. 1894. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 199 


at the Crystal Palace, specifically, they say, ‘It is obviously a hard 
porcelain, of which the raw materials are superior to the skill which has 
been bestowed on them.’* Parian in general — which they repeatedly 
term a hard porcelain — they describe as ‘this exquisite material, the 
happy substitute for marble.’ + 

Finally, both Barber and Pitkin, notwithstanding the confusion 
which is common to both, declare Parian to be a hard porcelain, named 
on account of its resemblance to Parian marble. Says Barber: 

Parian derives its name from its resemblance to a beautiful, ivory-tinted 
marble found in the island of Paros. It is a fine grade of porcelain, the 
ingredients being thoroughly ground together. It is usually moulded by the 
‘casting’ process, in the same manner as most thin china, and possesses the 
translucency and vitreous nature of porcelain, but is seldom glazed. 

Pitkin, as we have noted in an earlier chapter, defines Parian as 
‘an unglazed porcelain supposed to imitate Parian marble.’ He says 
that ‘When not too thick, Parian is translucent,’ and that ‘Only those 
pieces intended to hold liquids were actually glazed and then it was on 
the inside.’ § And, again, Parian ‘is a hard porcelain, and took its 
name from the resemblance to Parian marble.’ { 

It would be easy, but entirely superfluous, to make many additions 
to the foregoing quotations, all emphasizing the same points. It is 
sufficient for our purpose to take note of the fact that no authoritative 
writer, in England or America, has ever expressed any other view than 
that Parian is (a) a hard porcelain, and ()) that its distinctive and 
distinguishing characteristic is that it resembles Parian marble in 


appearance and texture. 


* Silliman and Goodrich, op. cit., p. 188. 
t Silliman and Goodrich, op. cit., p. 78. 
¢ Barber, op. cit., p. 20. 

§ Pitkin, op. cit., p. 35. 

q Idem, p. 20. 


200 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


It is obviously absurd, therefore, to apply the name ‘Parian’ to 
wares which are as little like Parian — or any other — marble as chalk 
is like cheese. It cannot be too often reiterated that the porcelain 
which is quite unlike marble in appearance must be placed in some 
other category than Parian. Let the collector examine his specimens 
of Bennington porcelain with this standard in mind: he will at once 
find himself engaged in reclassifying them, and, in the end, a small 
percentage of his pieces — if he has an extensive collection — will be 
classified as Parian and the remainder into the following categories: 
(1) hard porcelain with direct glaze; (2) hard porcelain with indirect, 
or ‘smear’ glaze; (3) soft-paste porcelain. 

Long before this stage of our discussion was reached, the interested 
reader, whether amateur collector or dealer, must have wished to ask, 
‘What of the Parian —or supposed Parian — pieces with colored 
backgrounds?’ Certainly, by no stretch of the imagination can the 
brilliant blue backgrounds of some of the vases and pitchers which 
have been called ‘Parian’ be regarded as possessing any close resem- 
blance to Parian marble; yet we know that the name has often been 
applied to pitchers and vases with backgrounds of blue, brown, and 
sage green, of English as well as of American make. 

If the reader who is puzzled by this question will take the trouble 
to go back to first principles, to elemental definitions, the answer will 
become self-evident. Let him go back, then, and start with the 
original conception of Parian as a material especially designed for the 
reproduction of sculpture, and to the alternative name Statuary 
Ware. Then let him think of the definition of the Standard Dictionary 
which correctly defines Parian as ‘a fine variety of hard porcelain used 
for statuettes and bas-reliefs.’ The same test must be applied to the 
reliefs as to statuettes, namely, do they resemble marble closely 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 201 


enough to be regarded as good imitations of it, both in texture and in 
surface appearance? The colored background is to be disregarded 
entirely, so far as this primary classification is concerned. It is obvious 
that the background was not intended to represent marble. It is just 
a background against which the bas-relief figures are displayed. It may 
be blue or green or some other color; it may be glazed or unglazed. 

If the figures are glazed and do not resemble marble, then they are 
not Parian figures, but something else. If both background and 
figures are directly glazed, the proper classification is hard porcelain, 
directly glazed and colored — assuming that the material is hard 
porcelain. If the colored background is directly glazed, but the 
figures unglazed and resembling marble, then its classification is hard 
porcelain directly glazed and colored, with Parian figures. If the entire 
piece, background and figures, is indirectly glazed, it should be so clas- 
sified. Finally, if both background and body are unglazed, since only 
the white relief will bear any resemblance to Parian marble, its proper 
classification is hard porcelain, colored, unglazed, with Parian figures. 

It may be necessary to warn the reader that, just as in the classifica- 
tion of porcelain into ‘hard-paste’ and ‘soft-paste,’ many variations 
will be encountered, and not a few indeterminate examples, so with 
this classification. I have several pitchers and vases in my collection 
which I am never quite certain how to classify. They are so close to 
what I may term the Parian ‘norm’ that it seems almost a meticulous 
conceit to exclude them from that category, and yet I am aware that 
they do not absolutely meet the test. On the other hand, they do not 
any better fit into any other of the categories. In this border zone, so 
to speak, the question is always one of opinion rather than of fact. 
Is this or that piece enough like Parian marble in its general appear- 
ance and its texture to be called Parian? One qualified expert answers 


202 ) THE FENTON POTTERIES 


that, in his opinion, it is; another equally well-qualified expert answers 
that, in his opinion, it is not. We must not seek the absolute. 

Unfortunately, the differences between the several types of porcelain 
which we have indicated and described cannot be photographically 
represented. The amateur collector must, therefore, depend more 
upon the text for guidance than upon the illustrations. Reliance upon 
illustrations as guides to identification has led numerous collectors 
and dealers into a bog of difficulties. It is important to remember 
this, because design and pattern are rarely found to be exclusively as- 
sociated with any one type of porcelain. In any extensive collection of 
Bennington ware will be found various specimens of the same pattern, 
size, and design which yet represent every type of hard-paste porcelain 
that was made, and all the indefinite intermediate variations. This 
applies to statuettes, vases, and other ornaments as well as to pitchers. 
In my own collection, for example, the familiar white Palm Tree design 
syrup-pitcher occurs in three quite distinct types. The pitchers are 
identical in size, pattern, and design, but differ radically in quality and 
finish. 

The upper half of Plate XIII illustrates four pitchers which have 
been represented as Parian by numerous writers, including Barber and 
Pitkin, though in fact none of them resembles Parian. The largest is 
the Rose design, one of the rarest of the several designs made by 
Fenton when he was in business alone. It bears the raised medallion 
mark with Fenton’s Works, Bennington, Vermont, impressed. It is 
not at all like marble, and to classify it as Parian, as, without an 
exception, every writer has done heretofore, is wrong and destroys the 
whole classification of which it is part. It is a typical example of 
indirectly glazed or ‘smear’-glazed hard-paste porcelain, and should 
be so classified. 





PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 7-203 


Next on the right is one of the Daisy designs. It bears the same mark 
as the other. Of this design there are variants, it should be noted. 
This is also a typical example of hard-paste porcelain with indirect or 
‘smear’ glaze. I have never seen this design, in any of its variants, in 
what I should call true Parian. It is, however, quite frequently found 
in an unfinished, biscuit state, generally unmarked. When china 
painting was in vogue, in the middle of the last century and later, as 
one of the ‘accomplishments’ to which nearly every lady aspired, a 
great many pitchers of this variety were sold in the biscuit state for 
decoration. Second from the left is the Niagara Falls pitcher. It 
has the raised medallion mark of the United States Pottery Com- 
pany. The entire surface is ‘smear’ glazed, and it is quite unlike 
Parian marble. Indeed, it is not Parian, but a fine example of in- 
directly glazed, hard-paste porcelain. This same pattern is fre- 
quently found in the directly glazed porcelain. 

The other is a Palm Tree syrup-pitcher, pewter-covered, and bear- 
ing the large ornamental medallion mark of the United States Pottery 
Company. It is not nearly so white as the other pitchers, probably 
because of the presence in the clay of oxide of iron in unusual quantity. 
It is less hard than either of the other three, a result, probably, of 
the use of bone dust. It is a hard-paste porcelain, nevertheless. Its 
surface has a peculiar appearance and it feels like wax to the touch. 
It is utterly unlike Parian in texture and surface appearance. It is a 
‘smear ’-glazed hard-paste porcelain with some unusual features which 
are probably of accidental origin. Syrup-pitchers of this size and 
pattern are found with the deep glaze attained only by direct glazing 
and in various degrees of ‘smear’ glazing, but rarely — if ever at all — 
in true Parian. 


Plate XIII also shows four colored porcelain pitchers, each of 


204. THE FENTON POTTERIES 


which has been designated Parian by Barber, Pitkin, and other writers 
copying from them. Neither one has a single characteristic feature of 
Parian. Each is as unlike Parian as the colors are unlike marble. The 
tall pitcher is of the design commonly called Paul and Virginia. 
On the bottom it bears the well-known ribbon mark. The background 
is a bright blue, pitted like the skin of an orange. The raised design 
is white. The whole exterior is brilliantly glazed, and the piece may 
be classified only as a notable example of colored, directly glazed 
porcelain. The same general description applies to the smaller 
pitcher with the Oak Leaves and Acorns design. This also bears the 
ribbon mark. The blue and white pitcher with the Pond Lily 
design, which also bears the raised ribbon mark on the bottom, is a 
good example of ‘smear’ glaze. The small syrup-pitcher with the 
Palm Trees design, is not quite so easy to classify. The background is 
pitted in the usual manner, but the color is a light brown. It is an 
exceedingly rare piece. It was apparently intended to have this 
represent true Parian upon a colored background. Probably due to 
accidental causes, one side of it is ‘smear’ glazed, the other remains 
unglazed. This pitcher, like the others on this plate, has the ribbon 
mark. 

Plate XXIV contains reproductions of a number of pieces of Parian, 
concerning the classification of which there can be neither doubt nor 
dispute. The large white pitcher with the Pond Lily design bears the 
ribbon mark with the initials of the United States Pottery Company. 
It is a splendid imitation of Parian marble, both in its texture and 
in its surface appearance; and no one having in mind the differences 
which I have attempted to describe in these pages, as the basis of a 
correct classification, would hesitate to classify it as Parian. It is 


a hard-paste porcelain, unglazed, made to imitate Parian marble. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 205 


Pitchers of this design are frequently found in the various types and 
variations of hard-paste porcelain. 

No other design was ever made at Bennington which so well lent 
itself to the Parian medium. The broad flat surfaces and low relief of 
the design are such as might well be wrought in marble, a considera- 
tion which is not true of the Daisy design, for example. 

Of the vases it is sufficient to say that, while their resemblance to 
marble in texture and the appearance of the surface itself leave no 
doubt as to their proper classification, they represent a base and 
improper use of the material. The one on the right of the plate is 
inexpressibly ugly and has not a single good feature. The design is as 
crude and ugly as even the mid-Victorian era could produce. The one 
at the left of the plate could not be wrought in marble, except as a 
tour de force, and then only at the cost of destroying every character- 
istic appearance of the material. It is not lacking in a certain graceful- 
ness, but the high relief of the leaves and the tendrils of the grape- 
vines, and the resulting fragility, which is so painfully obvious, are 
not in consonance with the actual material, or the substance which it 
is supposed to imitate. Delicate and graceful as are these elements of 
the design, they are not in harmony with the material and serve to 
illustrate how readily a really fine material could be debased. 

The same criticism must be made of the ornamental pitcher in the 
center. This is so fine in its workmanship, and the imitation of Parian 
marble so perfect, that I have sometimes doubted whether, after all, 
it was actually made at Bennington — whether, indeed, it may not be 
one of the English pieces brought here and used as models. Yet its 
‘pedigree’ seems unassailable. Pitchers of exactly the same pattern 
and design were made by S. Alcock & Co., the noted potters of 
Burslem, Staffordshire, and also, I believe, by T. R. Boote, of that 


206 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


city, but the same thing may be said of many of the Bennington 
pitchers. There is no denying the gracefulness and beauty displayed 
in this piece, or the exquisite workmanship. Yet the pitcher is heavily 
overburdened with ornament which detracts from its beauty and 
charm by distorting its outline. Above all, the ornamentation is in 
violent opposition to the nature of the material used and to the 
purpose for which the pitcher was intended. 

The fine granular surface of Parian, like that of the marble it is 
designed to imitate, is easily soiled and difficult to clean. This is 
true even of the flat surfaces; of course, it is still more pronounced in 
the case of broken surfaces. When we come to high relief with extreme 
undercutting of vine leaves, the drawback is greatly intensified. It is 
almost impossible to clean such inaccessible places. Moreover, the 
sharp edges and points of the leaves catch in any cloth that is used for 
washing or drying them, and they are so delicate and fragile and break 
so easily as to warrant the statement that it is practically impossible 
to wipe them. A vase or pitcher so fashioned that it must be handled 
with painful and laborious care violates every sound principle of art. 
Whatever skill of design or execution it displays is worse than wasted. 
This pitcher is wholly unsuited to use as a pitcher, or to use of any 
kind; it is fitted only to be kept under a glass shade, like the old- 
fashioned wax flowers. 

In justice to the Bennington potters, it should be said that they sim- 
ply followed precedent in this sort of debasement of a really fine and 
beautiful porcelain. Parian had no sooner been introduced in England 
than its misuse began. Such pitchers as the one we have been dis- 
cussing, and others which were even worse, were made by Copeland, 
Minton, Boote, Alcock, Rose, and others. Some of the pitchers and 
vases made in Parian by the English firms named, and others, are 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 207 


unspeakably hideous. Yet the same firms made statuettes and bas- 
reliefs of exquisite beauty. Writing of the English Parian exhibited at 
the New York Exhibition, in 1853, Silliman and Goodrich discussed 
this subject with great sincerity and a keen perception. I quote two 
typical paragraphs: 

We are sorry to see this exquisite material, the happy substitute for 
marble in statuettes and works purely ornamental, misapplied and de- 
graded by being moulded into jugs, cups, candlesticks, and all sorts of 


commonplace articles, of which there are so many to be seen in the exhibi- 
tion.* 


A small Parian bracket, which follows, in the Raffaelesque style, is a work 
in which beauty and propriety equally appear. We heartily wish that this 
fine material [Parian] had been altogether confined to purely ornamental 
objects like this, instead of being misapplied to ordinary table furniture, as 
has been done in the Tea Service, which, except for this fault, would be 
unexceptionable. The fine granular surface of Parian has a positive attrac- 
tion for dirt, and we like not to be compelled to remember the inevitable 
impurities of Parian tea cups, butter dishes, and beer-jugs, in connection 
with the divine creations of art, fitly enshrined in the same material. 


At its best, the Parian Ware produced at Bennington was decidedly 
inferior to the best of the English Parian. No one who is familiar with 
the finest of Copeland’s reproductions of classic sculpture will ever 
claim that anything done at Bennington approached them. At its 
worst, of course, the Bennington Parian was extremely crude in work- 
manship and dreadfully inartistic, possessing all the worst character- 
istics of the mid-Victorian degradation of taste, to which even Wedg- 
wood and Copeland sometimes succumbed. The best work was done 
in statuary, the natural fitness of material and purpose being in itself 
an important element of successful achievement. The excellence of the 
bust of Fenton has already been noted. Excellent, also, are many of 


* Silliman and Goodrich, op. cit., p. 78. + Idem, p. 94. 


208 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


the little statuettes and figures, some of which are illustrated on 
Plate XIX. The Little Red Riding Hood, the Tight Shoe, the Child at 
Prayer, and the trinket box in the form of a book surmounted by a re- 
cumbent lamb, are beautiful examples of Bennington Parian, which 
are not only as fine as anything ever produced in this country, but 
worthy to be ranked with the best English work of the same class.* 


Tue Makinc oF Partan Ware: CASTING 

It may be well to bring this discussion to a close with a brief account 
of the methods employed in the manufacture of Parian. At the outset 
it must be understood that this ware was never made by the ‘throw- 
ing’ process — that is, upon the potter’s wheel. It was invariably 
moulded, either by the ‘pressing’ or the ‘casting’ process. 

In casting, the materials are ground together and mixed with water 
to the consistency of liquid paint. This creamy liquid is called ‘slip.’ 
It is poured into hollow moulds made of plaster, the porousness of 
which insures the absorption of the water contained in the slip. As 
the water is thus absorbed and evaporated, the solid matter settles 
down and additional slip has to be poured in. When the mould is 
opened and the piece taken out, the next step is the addition of 
handles, ornaments, and so on. 

The next process is firing. As it is of the highest importance to keep 
the article from being soiled by smoke or dust while in the kiln, this 
firing is done in large containers called ‘seggars.’ When the firing has 
been completed, the material is ‘biscuit.’ If a direct glaze is to be ap- 
plied, that is the next process. If only a ‘smear’ glaze is required, the 
inside of the next seggar, in which the article is placed in the special 


* The collector is reminded that most of these pieces, if not all of them, are found in the 
other types of hard-paste porcelain as well as in Parian. In such forms they generally lose 
much of their charm. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 209 


kiln used for glaze firing, is glazed. If Parian is wanted, this ‘smear’ 
glazing is reduced to almost nothing — to the merest suggestion, for 
the true Parian standard is a surface that has no visible glaze, yet to 
the touch suggests an imperceptible, dull polish, as though the granu- 
lar, marble-like surface had been rubbed down. 

Handles of pitchers, and the vine leaves and bunches of grapes, and 
similar ornaments, were not cast with the body, in the same mould, 
but separately, and were applied to the body by hand, before firing, 
while both body and the part or parts to be added were ‘green.’ In 
the case of statuettes and animal pieces, the base, torso, head, and 
principal members were all moulded and cast separately and then 
assembled before firing. This work required a high degree of skill, as 
may be readily imagined. The pitting of the surface of a background 
so that it would resemble the indented surface of a thimble, was ac- 
complished in the mould, which had raised points on its surface, each 


point making an indentation. 


THe MAKING oF PaRIAN WARE: PRESSING 

The ‘pressing’ process, which was largely confined to pitchers, 
vases, and similar articles, differed from the ‘casting’ process in that 
the slip was reduced to a state resembling dough. It was passed 
through fine cloth, allowed to settle and the water drawn off. This 
dough-like paste was then pressed by hand against the sides of the 
mould. The subsequent stages of the manufacture were identical with 
those already described. 

Where a colored background was desired, the casting process was 
used. At Bennington, the color was not applied to the moulded body, 
either in the green state or in the biscuit, as many have supposed, and 


as was done in many places: the desired color was mixed with a certain 


210 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


quantity of slip which was then applied on the mould itself, to those 
parts which it was desired to color. This colored slip was carefully 
applied with a camel’s-hair brush, after which the slip for the body was 
poured into the mould. The two materials would immediately unite by 
adhesion, yet without intermingling. Firing, of course, completed the 
union. A great deal of the blue porcelain with white Parian designs in 
relief which is found in the antique shops up and down the country, and 
frequently mistaken for Bennington, shows plainly enough that the 
blue was applied to the body, and is not a part of it. Much of it looks 
as if water-color paint, or kalsomine, had been applied to the biscuit 
and then fired. The colored porcelain of Bennington never has that 
appearance. Since the color was thoroughly mixed with the outer 
coating of slip — which is always of considerable thickness — the 
colored part gives much the appearance of penetrating the entire body 
of the ware except for the white inside glaze. This is one of the best 
tests to apply to the mass of blue-and-white porcelain on the market, 
offered — honestly in many instances — as Bennington Parian. 

Let the amateur beware, however, for even this test is not absolute 
or infallible. The only safe course is to insist upon obtaining marked 
pieces of those patterns and designs which are known to have been 
marked — sometimes at least, if not always; and for the rest — in 
the case of patterns and designs which were not marked — to take 
expert advice or to require a detailed ‘pedigree’ which can be thor- 
oughly investigated and checked up. Not ten per cent of the pitchers 
and vases in Parian, or in blue porcelain with white ornamentation, 
decorated with vine leaves and bunches of grapes, are Bennington, a 
widespread belief to the contrary notwithstanding. It is safe to say 
that virtually every pottery in this country and in England that made 
Parian and other porcelains at any time between 1842 and 1892 used 
this decoration more or less extensively. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PORCELAINS 211 


SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO CHAPTER IV 


Tue ‘WepGwoop Mortar’ WARE 


This is perhaps the most fitting place to make record of another of 
the many interesting experiments made by Fenton, and of the high 
hopes which were entertained concerning it. The following extract is 
from an article published in the Bennington Banner, March 28, 1856, 
which was either written by Fenton or inspired by him: 


We cannot enumerate in detail the multitude of different wares manu- 
factured here, all of which are of exquisite delicacy and beauty, nor can we 
forego the mention of one more article of great value, and never before 
manufactured in this country. We refer to the Druggist or Wedgwood 
Mortar, some specimens of which were shown us at the factory. The body 
of these mortars is of a semi-vitrified compound, in which one portion 
remains infusible at the greatest heat to which they are exposed; while the 
other portion vitrifies at that heat, and enveloping the infusible part, produces 
a smooth, fine, compact body that will resist the action of all acids, and defy 
for endless ages the destroying hand of Time. We are glad to learn that 
these mortars are pronounced by the large importers of New York and 
Boston fully equal to those manufactured in England (France makes none) 
and have left their orders for large quantities of them, and we venture the 
prediction that in five years no more mortars will be used in America than 
are manufactured in America. 

This speaks volumes for our friends, FENTon and Ciark, who have ac- 
complished in ten years what it took England ages to perform. 


I had heard, years ago, that, at one time, the manufacture of mor- 
tars and pestles was carried on at the United States Pottery on a large 
scale, and that almost certain financial success had been generally 
predicted from this branch of manufacture. It was not until I read the 
article containing the foregoing paragraphs, however, that I deter- 
mined to find one of these ‘Wedgwood Mortars,’ if possible. If there 
was one left in any attic or ‘buttery’ in New England, it must be 


found. Before long, my search was rewarded with success. A mortar 


oie THE FENTON POTTERIES 


and pestle, both perfect, with an indisputable ‘pedigree’ were found at 
a farmhouse near Bennington. Even if there had been no such pedi- 
gree, however, I believe that I should have been quite content, once I 
had heard the wonderful tones that resounded when the mortar was 
struck, bell fashion. It seemed impossible to believe that such strength 
and clarity of sound could emanate from any product of the potter’s 
art. Comparison with many other mortars of the same general ap- 
pearance left no doubt that here was something quite superior in qual- 
ity. Obviously, it was a hard porcelain, too thick to be translucent 
(the ware is half an inch thick), but of a quality that, presumably, 
might be translucent in a thinner body. It seemed to be practically 
indestructible, and the hardest blows with the pestle did not injure it 
in the slightest degree. 

Every collector who reads this will understand why I prized these 
homely articles more than some of the handsomest specimens in my 
collection. Of course, such pride had to be humbled; it invited the 
proverbial fall. One day, while displaying my collection to a good 
friend and neighbor, I beat a light tattoo upon the mortar with the 
pestle, using my left hand while arranging something on the shelves 
with my right hand. Without warning, and without my being aware 
of it even, until my friend called my attention to the fact, the mortar 
which was supposed to defy for endless ages the destroying hand of 
Time, lay in two pieces upon the rug. Repaired and wholly well- 
seeming, but silent, it now rests upon the shelf. What happened to my 
cherished prize was, in all probability, what had happened to many 
another of the vessels which the makers believed to be practically in- 
destructible. Perhaps that was the reason why the glowing hopes ex- 
pressed in the article quoted were never realized. 


V 
SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 
Decius W. CLark 

N any list of the craftsmen who were associated with the Fenton 
Potteries at Bennington the place of honor unquestionably be- 
longs to Decius W. Clark. He was not only by far the ablest of 
the men who worked at Bennington; he was one of the most remarka- 
ble men ever connected with the pottery industry in this country. As 
already pointed out in an earlier chapter, a great deal of the credit 
usually bestowed upon Christopher Webber Fenton in reality belongs 
to Clark. From 1847, when the firm of Norton & Fenton was dis- 
solved and Fenton went into business on his own account, until the 
winding-up of the United States Pottery Company, Clark was re- 
sponsible for every formula used, both for bodies and for glazes. This 
fact was attested to by Christopher Webber Fenton on more than one 
occasion. In Bennington it was well known. This of itself would en- 
title Clark to a high place among American potters. That he was the 
real inventor of the Flint Enamel process patented by Fenton may be 

regarded as a moral certainty, even though direct proof is lacking. 
He was a native of Vermont, having been born, in 1815, at Burling- 
ton, where his father was stationed in the service of the United States 
Government. The elder Clark was transferred to the Watervliet 
Arsenal and removed his family to West Troy, New York, while 
Decius was still a small boy. There was a stoneware pottery at West 
Troy, and here young Decius served an apprenticeship of seven years. 
As a young man, even before the completion of his apprenticeship, he 


214 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


acquired some reputation among his fellows for his skill as a potter and | 
for the assiduity with which he studied the problems of his art. It is 
said that he was always reading and experimenting, and his knowledge 
of the chemistry of his craft gave him a place of recognized leadership 
among the potters of Troy and its vicinity. His advice was always 
sought when there were difficult problems to be solved, even the men 
from whom he had learned the rudiments of his trade deigning to con- 
sult him and to seek his advice and aid. 

He was barely twenty years of age when he married, his wife, who 
was Miss Harriet Grace, belonging to one of the oldest and most highly 
respected families of Troy. He was twenty-five years of age when he 
came to Bennington with his wife and children. Young as he was, he 
had acquired such reputation as one of the best stoneware potters in 
the country and as a student of all pertaining to the pottery industry, 
that Julius Norton had sought him out and induced him to accept 
employment in the Norton Pottery. 

Working there at the time were such men as Frank Norton, Fred- 
erick Hancock, and John Webb, acknowledged master-craftsmen, 
whose skill and achievements have become traditions. The fact that 
Decius W. Clark immediately assumed a position of leadership in 
such a group proves that he was a craftsman of far more than ordinary 
ability, and a man of character besides. But he possessed little or no 
artistic sense, and it is said by those who remember him well that he 
frequently lamented the fact that he could hardly draw a simple 
sketch to help elucidate his ideas. 

His mind was peculiarly well fitted for investigation and research. 
He studied the properties of clays and experimented in the compound- 
ing of bodies and glazes. Intensely patriotic, he resented the depend- 
ence of this country upon Great Britain for china ware, and stoutly 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 215 


held that from our native clays could be made ware of every variety, 
equal to, if not surpassing, the British product. To use only the native 
clays, feldspar, flint, and ores was his inflexible determination. Help- 
less in the matter of designing and modelling, in every other branch of 
the industry he excelled. 

His association with Fenton during many years has already been 
sufficiently described. From the time Fenton went into business on 
his own account, after separating from Julius Norton, to the date of 
his death, in 1865, Clark was always at his right hand. It was Clark 
who supervised the first experiments in porcelain-making by Norton & 
Fenton, compounding the bodies for the pieces modelled by John 
Harrison, working out the problems of firing, glazing, and so on. All 
through the vicissitudes of Fenton, Hall & Co., Lyman, Fenton & Co., 
the United States Pottery Company, and, later, A. A. Gilbert & Co., 
his was the brain that was always at work mastering the technical 
problems and evolving new and improved processes. 

Between Clark and Fenton there existed a strong bond of attach- 
ment that was quite extraordinary, and that appears all the more re- 
markable when we consider how difficult it was for Fenton to form and 
hold intimate friendships with other men. Following the failure of the 
United States Pottery Company, strong efforts were made to per- 
suade Clark to dissociate himself from Fenton, and to assume direc- 
tion of a reorganization. Rightly or wrongly, it was felt locally that 
Fenton was the prime cause of the failure of the concern; that, as the 
local newspaper put it, he had dealt the enterprise a ‘ parricidal blow.’ 
But the friendship of the two men, and their close association, could 
not be broken. 

In the brief sketch of the attempts that were made to revive the 
United States Pottery, reference has been made to a patent which 


216 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Clark obtained in 1859 for a new process of enamelling. This inven- 
tion was something of much larger significance than a mere enamel 
glaze for various kinds of crockery. As one reads the accounts of the 
invention in the newspapers of the period, and of the arrangements 
that were being made to use it in manufacturing, one is almost stag- 
gered by the magnitude of the conception and the boldness of the 
imagination displayed. Briefly stated, the invention applied not only 
to crockery, but also — and more especially — to building materials. 
Ordinary common red brick, terra-cotta, or stone could be given a coat- 
ing of this enamel, which would make the surface perfectly smooth, 
hard, absolutely impervious to moisture, and incapable of being 
chipped or peeled off. It was unaffected by acids or by the most ex- 
treme changes of temperature. The enamel could be perfectly white, 
or it could be tinted any color by the use of metallic oxides. 

The New York Day Book published in November, 1859, an ex- 
haustive description of the new invention. A few extracts from this 
article will show how it was regarded by a responsible authority of the 


time: 


The development ... which we are about to describe, is the result of the 
persevering efforts of Messrs. D. W. Clark and C. W. Fenton of Bennington, 
Vt., in their determination to bring out an article of crockery made from 
American materials fully equal to the best productions of France and 
England, and which would neither craze nor check by use or exposure to 
atmospherical action; in the course of their recent experiments they fortu- 
nately hit upon a combination of metallic and mineral substances, which, in 
its effects, has more than met their most sanguine expectations not only in 
producing a perfect enamel for crockery ware, but is found to be equally 
fusible upon the most common red brick as well as almost every variety of 
stone, giving to either of these substances a perfectly smooth polished sur- 
face of the purest white, and which can be changed (by the use of metallic 
oxides) to any conceivable color desired, representing the color of anything 
in nature or art; and the same can be variegated to represent all kinds of 





SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 217 
marble, free-stone or granite. It is difficult to conceive of anything more 
beautiful or better adapted to the wants, tastes, and capacities of all.* 

What this paper foresaw as a result of the invention amounted to 
nothing less than a revolution in the building trade. That the same 
view was entertained by the inventor himself, and by Fenton, his 
partner, there can hardly be any question. This appears not only 
from the publicity which they inspired, but equally from their plans. 
They proposed to use the new enamel not merely in manufacturing 
crockery for domestic purposes, but also in the manufacture of brick. 
Not only that, they arranged to license others to use the invention, 
themselves supervising the erection of the kilns. To all the firms 
licensed to use the patent, upon a royalty basis, Fenton and Clark were 
to furnish the enamel, prepared ready for use. They actually leased 
and bought up a large number of quartz and feldspar deposits and 
arranged contracts with no less than twenty-four mills to grind these 
materials. Some of the largest and most important brick manufac- 
turers in the country secured licenses for the exclusive manufacture, 
in their respective districts, of building and ornamental architectural 
material. Such firms as J. Park & Co., the largest manufacturers of 
brick in New York, and Fisk & Ring, of Boston, one of the largest 
firms in New England, became licensees under Fenton and Clark for 
the use of the invention. Something of the vision of the inventor and 
of the hard-headed business men who manifested their confidence in 
its success may be gathered from the following additional paragraph 
from the New York Day Book: 


Men of moderate means whose highest ambition may have been to 
possess an ordinary brick tenement, can, with but a trifling additional 
expense, live as it were, in a porcelain palace, in comparison with which, 
(for elegance) polished marble bears but a slight comparison. In an economt- 


* Reprinted in the Bennington Banner, December 23, 1859. 


218 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


cal point of view, it surpasses the most ordinary building material, from 
the fact that a slab or block of any size or shape, plain surface or carved, 
that can be moulded of common brick clay, can be enamelled in the most 
beautiful manner, with only the additional expense of immersing the article 
in the liquid enamel, and subjecting it to a low degree of heat for about six 
hours’ duration to fuse, leaving a perfectly smooth and polished surface. 
Thus it will be seen that enamelled slabs of any desired color, such as gray, 
sky blue or straw color, &c. &c., must take the place of plastering and plain 
or gilded paper, and be as durable as the building itself, and always be clean, 
bright and beautiful. The mantels, table, bureau and stand tops, as well as 
complete toilet sets, can be made to correspond exactly with the color of the 
rooms or drapery. The outside of the building may be made equally elegant 
by taking common brick from any brickyard and enamelling them in the 
same manner, and which may be finished with a gloss or not at the will of the 
operator, while burning or managing the kilns. 


The Buffalo Republic reprinted the article from the Day Book, to- 
gether with a long editorial upon the subject. From the news columns 
of the same paper we learn that D. W. Clark and C. W. Fenton had 
arranged to visit Buffalo for the purpose of introducing the new in- 
vention, and that their visit was eagerly discussed in business circles. 


The editorial to which reference has been made said, in part: 


The importance of the subject treated upon to the United States is almost 
incalculable. If, as the gentlemen say, and we have no reason to doubt the 
statements put forth, that they can manufacture brick and all manner of 
architectural work and cover it with a porcelain finish at a slightly advanced 
cost, from ordinary clay brick, it will at once produce a wonderful revolu- 
tion in all our building operations.... They have already made arrange- 
ments in Boston, Providence and New York with the most extensive brick 
makers at those several points for the manufacture of all manner of building 
material. Thus it would seem that in a very short time we shall be able to 
see houses finished inside and out with this beautiful composition. We have 
not learned whether any one in this city has as yet secured a license for 
manufacturing the work in this section, but presume that some of our large 
brick-making concerns will lose no time in securing the right. It seems to us 
that its introduction here would open a very large field for enterprise and 
labor. It will give us great pleasure to welcome any project to our city that 





SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 219 


will give a new impulse to the manufacturing interests of our people, and 
hope in a short time to be able to chronicle an event of so much importance 
to every landholder in this city.* 


The State Assayer of Massachusetts, Professor Charles T. Jackson, 
who was regarded as being perhaps the foremost chemical authority 
in the country, made a report upon the finished products made ac- 
cording to this invention which would seem to justify the high expec- 
tations of the newspapers. In a letter to the inventor, he wrote, on 
October 20, 1859: 

I have examined and tested your Patent Enameled or Porcelain Faced 
Bricks, and find that the enamel is a fine, hard, opaque porcelain which 
imparts great strength to the brick or body to which it is applied — render- 
ing it indestructible from the action of the elements, as the enamel resists all 
atmospheric causes of decomposition and disintegration, and that it cannot 
be peeled off by pressure or by frost, or by any exposure to the weather in 
any climate.... They must form a perfect security against the admission 
of moisture, and unlike marble, will never stain or fade, and will endure for 
ages without the slightest change or deterioration. 

This enamel or porcelain facing can be tinted of any color desired, and 
may be successfully applied to any kind of bricks and to blocks for buildings, 
or for Tiles for Tessellated or Mosaic Pavements, as also for Table Tops, 


Mantels, and for various other furnishing and architectural materials, to 
which it imparts a beauty and brilliancy unrivalled. 


A more stupendous scheme was probably never conceived by any 
manufacturers of building material anywhere in the world. That it 
was not wholly visionary, but had a basis of sound and enduring merit, 
is evident from the fact that the leading firms of brick-makers, in 
various parts of the country, became licensees under the patent and 
actually went into the manufacture of the enamelled bricks. Despite 
the auspicious beginning, which seemed to insure success upon a 


* The Buffalo Republic, December 3, 1859. 
{ Quoted in the article published in the New York Day Book. 


220 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


national scale, and the apparent merit of the enamel itself, the scheme 
failed after a little while. As to what were the reasons for the failure, 
there seems to be no available evidence; at least, none is known to the 
present writer. Perhaps some research directed to that end would dis- 
cover them. Clark himself never lost faith in the merit of his inven- 
tion, and some years after the failure of the Peoria enterprise he started 
to manufacture his Patent Enamelled Brick at Croton, New York, and 
carried on the business for a few years. 

In 1862 his wife died. She was the mother of a large family, eight 
children surviving both parents. Soon after her death, Clark an- 
nounced his conversion to Christianity, and from that time onward 
was a devout Christian and active church member. He was married 
again, in 1875, in Chicago, his second wife being a Mrs. Margaret 
Morehouse. In 1876 he settled in Croton, New York, where he es- 
tablished a brick enamelling works, which he successfully carried on 
for some years. He died at Croton, April 1, 1887, in his seventy- 
second year. 

Much of this sketch of the career of this remarkable craftsman has 
been devoted to the ambitious, but long forgotten, undertaking based 
upon his Patent Enamel; but mention, at least, should be made of the 
fact that his inventive genius found many other expressions. For ex- 
ample, he invented an enamelled retort for use in the manufacture of 
gas, which was of tremendous economic importance and value. That 
he was the profoundest student of the chemistry and physics of the 
pottery industry in America during his day, and perhaps at any 
time, is not too much to claim for him. He was self-taught, yet his 
scientific attainments were of a high order. A great craftsman, ad- 
mired for the excellence of his work by men who themselves were 
great craftsmen, he was always unassuming and modest, and the old 





SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 221 


potters who as boys and young men worked under him have preserved 
a rich remembrance of his genial and kindly personality. 


DaNnIEL GREATBACH 

It is probable that for every collector of Bennington and other 
pottery who knows anything of Decius W. Clark there are a hundred 
to whom the name of Daniel Greatbach is familiar and well known. 
This is due, of course, to the fact that Greatbach’s name is associated 
with some of the designs and models most sought after by collectors 
everywhere. While Decius W. Clark was incomparably the greater 
man, and there can be no comparison of their respective contributions 
to the pottery industry at Bennington, Greatbach achieved the wider 
popular fame. Although he was not a great designer and modeller, 
in the sense that Flaxman and Hackwood — whose names are associ- 
ated with the greatest achievements of Wedgwood — were great 
designers and modellers, or even in the lesser sense that Josiah Jones, 
of Cartlidge & Co., of Greenpoint, New York, was a great designer 
and modeller, he was a man of marked ability who attained a na- 
tional reputation. While his work was not remarkable for originality 
or for artistic distinction, it possessed the elements of popularity. Its 
quaintness, its whimsicality, and sometimes even its crudeness, made 
direct and instant appeal to a public possessed of no highly developed 
artistic taste; simple and kindly folk who were attracted by things 
that were ‘just too cute for words.’ 

Like so many other potters who left their impress upon the pottery 
industry in this country, Daniel Greatbach was of English birth and 
ancestry and belonged to a family of famous pottery workers. In the 
history of the Staffordshire potteries the name Greatbach holds an 
ancient and honorable place. In the Staffordshire Pottery Directory, 


a2 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


published in 1802, at Hanley, we find the name of James Greatbach, 
a potter at Shelton, and the same publication lists John Greatbach, 
dealer in earthenware, at Burslem, and Oliver Greatbach, oven-builder 
at the same place. When, in 1754, Josiah Wedgwood entered into 
partnership with Thomas Whieldon, at Little Fenton, or Fenton Low, 
as it was more often called, among their early apprentices were four 
youths who were destined to achieve eminent position among English 
potters. These four apprentices were Josiah Spode, William Great- 
bach, Robert Garner, and Uriah Sutton. Associated with great mas- 
ters, each of these youths became himself a great craftsman and left 
his name indelibly impressed upon the history of his industry. 

When his apprenticeship to Whieldon and Wedgwood was finished, 
William Greatbach set up in business for himself, at Fenton. He 
made wares of superb quality, specimens of which are still extant and 
are highly cherished. He made the famous tea-pots upon which was 
printed in black the ‘History of the Prodigal Son,’ engraved by 
Thomas Radford, a famous engraver of the time. He also made the 
‘World in Planisphere’ mugs, the design by Radford being reproduced 
by the transfer-printing process. But William Greatbach failed in 
business, owing, it is said, to the dishonesty of a business associate, 
though I do not know of any detailed authority for the statement. 
As soon as the failure became known, Josiah Wedgwood went to his 
former apprentice, whose skill he had long admired, and entered into 
a most remarkable agreement with him. This was to the effect that 
Wedgwood was to pay Greatbach five shillings a day for the rest of 
his life, and provide him with a good house and garden free of rent, 
regardless of whether he worked or not, provided that anything he 
designed or modelled should be the exclusive property of Wedgwood. 
Five shillings a day in addition to house and garden free of rent was a 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 223 


high wage for that period, and the agreement shows how highly 
Josiah Wedgwood esteemed the work of his old pupil and apprentice. 
The agreement was faithfully kept on both sides until Greatbach’s 
death. It is unfortunate that identification of the Wedgwood produc- 
tions which were designed and modelled by William Greatbach should 
be almost wholly a matter of guesswork and inference. 

This William Greatbach was the grandfather of Daniel Greatbach. 
The latter came to this country about 1839, and went to work as a 
modeller at the works of the American Pottery Manufacturing 
Company, Jersey City, where, since 1825, excellent work had been 
done. The Jersey City Porcelain and Earthenware Company, estab- 
lished in 1825, was, in 1826, awarded the silver medal of the Franklin 
Institute for ‘the best china from American materials.’ In 1829, the 
works were purchased by D. and J. Henderson, who made ‘flint stone- 
ware’ of a high quality. After various changes of ownership and 
management, when Greatbach arrived, the concern had become the 
American Pottery Manufacturing Company. He was then in the 
prime of life. He had been previously employed as a modeller by the 
famous English potters, the Ridgways. 

At Jersey City, Greatbach made what I believe to have been the 
first of the many varieties of pitchers having a dog’s body for handle 
which became so popular all over the United States, and which toward 
the middle of the nineteenth century were made by so many potteries. 
Of course, he was not the original creator of this general design. 
Pitchers with handles in the form of a dog’s body had been made in 
England long before, most of the leading Staffordshire firms having 
adopted the general idea. The Wedgwoods had one, modelled, ac- 
cording to tradition at least, by William Greatbach soon after he had 
entered the service of Josiah Wedgwood. The Doultons made a 


224 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


hound-handled pitcher that was very popular. Another was made by 
the Ridgways, and so on. The latter firm also used the body of a fox 
for a handle. There is some reason, indeed, to believe that the proto- 
type of all pitchers of this general type displayed the body of a fox as a 
handle. The association of the grapes in the border design with the 
hunting scene on the sides lends plausibility, at least, to this theory. 

The hound-handled pitcher which Greatbach designed and modelled 
at Jersey City differs in several important particulars from the one 
he made at Bennington some years later. It is, I think, far inferior to 
the latter. The general features of the two designs do not differ greatly, 
but the shape of the Bennington pitcher is the better, while its model- 
ling is greatly superior. The hound on the Bennington pitcher is more 
striking, mainly owing to the manner in which the head is arched and 
raised above the paws. As a matter of fact, however, in neither case is 
the dog anything better than a travesty. Neither bears any resem- 
blance to any breed of dog known to mankind. In the Jersey City 
model, the ‘hound’ is a mere impressionistic sketch; in the Benning- 
ton model, the modelling is more ambitious and detailed, but the result 
bears no semblance to a real dog. It is more like some sort of serpen- 
tine creature around the head, while the body with its sharp edge all 
along the under-side is an anatomical absurdity. If one were to gather 
together a representative collection of the many varieties of dog- 
handled pitchers made in this country — to say nothing of the Eng- 
lish — he would find several which are markedly superior to either of 
these Greatbach creations. 

At Jersey City, Greatbach also designed and modelled a number 
of Toby jugs and mugs. He designed and modelled the Apostle 
pitcher made by the American Pottery Company, having raised fig- 
ures of the Apostles in panels, and being an adaptation of one made 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 225 


by the Ridgways, which Greatbach may or may not have executed at 
an earlier date, when employed by that firm. In many respects, the 
finest work he did for the Jersey City firm, and perhaps in his entire 
career in this country, was a tea-set in Cream Ware, with floral decora- 
tions in relief. While the several pieces were greatly over-ornamented, 
after the fashion of that day, they were excellent in shape, and the 
floral design was in itself pleasing and well executed. 

Barber says that ‘In 1852, Mr. Greatbach entered into partnership 
with James Carr and commenced the manufacture of pottery at 
South Amboy, New Jersey, but this connection only lasted about a 
year. Greatbach went to Peoria, Illinois, where Mr. George Wolfe 
... found him in 1861.’ * This account is erroneous in some respects, 
at least. It is as certain as anything can be that Greatbach was not 
in partnership with James Carr at South Amboy during the year 1852- 
53. During the whole of that period he was residing in Bennington, 
and it is possible that he was there somewhat earlier. He modelled 
many of the pieces which were exhibited by the United States Pottery 
Company at the New York Exhibition, in 1853, including the great 
monumental piece which formed the center of the firm’s exhibit. He 
was working upon this in the latter part of 1852 and the first months 
of 1853. On the other hand, James Carr had another partner at the 
period mentioned. When Carr left the Jersey City firm, in 1852, he 
went to South Amboy and took the Swan Hill Pottery. As Barber 
correctly states, on another page,{ his partner in that enterprise was 
Thomas Locker. That partnership lasted just a year, and until 
October, 1853, when Carr left South Amboy and opened a pottery in 
New York City, where his partner was one Morrison. The firm of 
Morrison and Carr became famous for its majolica. It is quite pos- 


* Barber, op. cit., pp. 438-39. + Barber, op. cit., p. 178 


226 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


sible that Greatbach was at South Amboy for a few weeks, at most; 
it is probable that he made some models for Carr, which were used at 
South Amboy during the year of the association of Carr and Locker. 
Barber’s account passes over eight or nine years of the most fruitful 
period of Greatbach’s life and then says that ‘Mr. George Wolf... 
found him, in 1861,’ at Peoria. It would have been equally correct to 
have said that it was Greatbach who found Wolf. 

The facts are that, from 1852 to the spring of 1858, Greatbach was 
residing at Bennington and was employed by the United States 
Pottery Company as chief designer and modeller. He went with 
Decius W. Clark and Christopher Webber Fenton to Kaolin, South 
Carolina, and worked there for a brief period. After that he went to 
Peoria and joined with his old friends and employers. That was late 
in 1859 or at the beginning of 1860. He was so employed when he was 
‘found’ by Mr. George Wolf. 

At Bennington, Greatbach modelled, in addition to the pieces 
already mentioned, a whole series of Toby mugs and bottles. (Plate 
XI.) The Franklin Toby, with a handle in the shape of a man’s leg and 
foot, is an adaptation of a larger Franklin mug made at Jersey City. 
The one with the grapevine handle is, except for the handle, almost a 
copy of a Toby jug in pink lustre made in Staffordshire, England, and 
quite popular during the latter part of the first half of the nineteenth 
century. The ‘Coachman’ and ‘Monk’ bottles were principally used 
in saloon bars for whiskey. The ‘ Duke of Wellington’ Toby is perhaps 
the least common of all. It is sometimes called the ‘ John Stark’ Toby 
by country people in Vermont. For a long time I did not believe that 
this model was ever made at Bennington, but in the course of my 
investigations discovered what seems to be indisputable evidence of 
my mistake. Not the least convincing of the circumstances which 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 227 


forced me to change my opinion was the fact that a laborer digging 
near the Graded School, where waste from the old pottery had been 
used for filling in, dug up a piece of ware in the biscuit state, which 
was undoubtedly the lower half of one of these Duke of Wellington 
Toby mugs, the epaulettes and the high military collar plainly showing. 
Charles Kimball, who worked in the United States Pottery, said that 
these Wellington mugs were made there, but not in large numbers. 

There is every reason to believe that Greatbach modelled the 
famous ‘Bennington Lions,’ though positive evidence to that effect 
is lacking. Dr. 5S. R. Wilcox, who worked at the United States Pottery 
in his youth, while only vaguely remembering Greatbach himself, 
remembered that old-time potters always spoke of the lions as having 
been modelled by Greatbach. William G. Leake, who retains a vivid 
memory of Greatbach, likewise ‘always understood’ that the latter 
modelled the lions. Charles Kimball, who as a lad was ‘jigger-turner’ 
for Greatbach, and remembered him quite well, said that he knew that 
Greatbach modelled the Toby mugs and bottles, and, while he did not 
see the master at work upon the lions, he recollected that shop gossip 
credited Greatbach with their design. Kimball also attributed the 
Cow-Creamer to Greatbach. In neither case can any originality of 
conception or design be credited to Greatbach. The Bennington 
cream-pitcher in the form of a cow is an exact reproduction of a famil- 
iar English model, which has little to commend it except a certain 
naive quaintness. 

The lions were made in two quite distinct types, each of which was 
made both with a base and without. In every case the lion has one of 
its forepaws resting upon a ball. One type of lion has a curly mane 
smoothly glazed like the rest of the body. This is generally supposed 
to represent a lioness. The other type has a rough mane in the so- 


228 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


called ‘cold-slaw’ effect, having the appearance of rough-cast plaster. 3 
It is precisely like the mane of the poodle dog carrying the basket of 
fruit. The lions on bases are generally — but not always — marked; 
those not mounted on bases are never marked. 

These lions are sometimes finished in Rockingham, and sometimes 
in Flint Enamel with the usual metallic coloring of that glaze. (Plates 
I and XXXVIII.) If Greatbach modelled these animals, he copied 
from English models. The Whieldon lions are well known. Both the 
types described were quite extensively made in England, and I can 
quite well remember seeing them in many English homes when I was 
a boy. Many old potters who came originally from England have 
confirmed my recollection in this respect. 

Some years ago a lion on a base, with the rough cast, or ‘cold-slaw’ 
mane, was identified by several of the best-known collectors of Ben- 
nington ware, as being ‘Bennington beyond any question.’ Yet that 
particular beast had been brought from Staffordshire, England, by 
its owners, and there was not the slightest shadow of doubt that it 
had been made there. Not only was it identical with the Bennington 
lion in appearance, but in its dimensions. The amateur collector, there- 
fore, will do well to regard unmarked lions with some skepticism and to 
seek expert advice before purchasing any of them. This advice is 
proffered, not alone because of such incidents as the one related, but 
because, within a period of about eighteen months, I have been offered, 
on two separate occasions, ‘Bennington’ lions which, most certainly, 
were never made at Bennington. 

Other animal pieces modelled by Greatbach while at Bennington 
include the large Recumbent Cow and the two deer, Stag and Doe, 
recumbent, each upon a separate base. All three pieces, which rank 
among the best that Greatbach ever modelled, are copied from Eng- 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 229 


lish originals. The Bennington pieces differ from their prototypes, 
however, in the nature of the material of their bodies and also in the 
coloring. There is no likelihood of confusing English and American 
pieces of this description; nor should there be difficulty in identifying 
them. Even when the Bennington pieces are unmarked — which is 
rare in the case of these animals — they may be quite readily identi- 
fied. 

In all probability Greatbach did not model the famous Bennington 
Dog Carrying a Basket of Fruit. According to Charles Kimball, it was 
gossip of the shop, even while Greatbach was working there, that the 
‘ original models for this pair of dogs, right and left, were made by John 
Harrison, and that they were intended to be made in white porcelain. 
When the fire of 1845 caused the abandonment of the Bennington 
experiments in porcelain-making, and the return of Harrison to 
England, the moulds were laid aside, no satisfactory pieces having 
been made from them up to that time. Later, during the time of 
Lyman, Fenton & Co., the Harrison moulds were brought out and 
Parian dogs successfully made from them. It was then decided to 
produce the dogs in Rockingham and the patent Flint Enamel. 
This required some modification of the design in order to secure good 
results in glazing; the top of the dogs’ heads in front was flattened and 
the peak in the center of the head common to the Parian dogs done 
away with. Comparison of the pictures of the two types will illustrate 
this point quite clearly. In support of this bit of tradition, which is 
given for what it is worth, it may be pointed out that there are some 
features of the modelling of the basket of fruit carried by these Ben- 
nington dogs which are identical with certain features of the one 
definitely authenticated example of Harrison’s modelling that we 
have. Occasionally, one finds a Parian dog to which a mustache has 


230 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


been added, giving it a grotesque appearance. Such additions were 
inspired by the whimsical humor of individual potters, who made 
such pieces for themselves or their friends, not for the trade. 
(Plate XXXI.) 

It is noteworthy that Charles Kimball did not, and William G. 
Leake does not, agree with the description of Greatbach given by both 
Barber and Pitkin. Barber says that he was ‘large and handsome in 
appearance,’ * and Pitkin quotes Mr. Henry S. Gates, of Chicago, 
formerly of Bennington, as saying that ‘ Daniel Greatbach was inclined 
to be a recluse.... He was about sixty years old and weighed about 
two hundred and forty pounds.’ { Kimball knew Greatbach well. 

As his ‘jigger-man’ he worked with him and under his immediate 
direction for years. He knew all the moods of the older man, to whose 
beck and call he was subject. Many years afterward he could mimic 
the voice, gestures, and gait of the man, whom, by the way, he almost 
worshipped. As Kimball remembered him, Greatbach was small in 
stature, well below the average height, and weighed not more than a 
hundred and forty-five or fifty pounds. Too fond of ‘lifting the glass,’ 
as Kimball expressed it, Greatbach was anything but a recluse. He 
was what is termed ‘a good mixer,’ fond of chatting with people on the 
streets and elsewhere. A man of highly convivial habits, he was a 
regular attendant at a local bar-room where the potters gathered in 
the evenings, and there he used to sit night after night, delighting in 
telling stories and singing songs. 

Leake remembers Greatbach as a man about five feet five inches in 
height, weighing about ten stone — one hundred and forty pounds. 
He was an exceptionally small-boned man, with notably small and 
graceful hands and feet. Always fastidious in his appearance, he was 


* Barber, op. cit., p. 439. t Pitkin, op. cit., p. 33. 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 231 


as neat as the proverbial new pin. He invariably wore a tall silk hat 
on the street, even when going to and from his work. His appearance 
was more like that of a minister than a mechanic. Leake also says that 
Greatbach was a delightfully sociable man; that he was always ‘one of 
the boys.’ His regular attendance at the bar-room and his conviviality 
were well known. In all respects the accounts of Charles Kimball and 
William G. Leake tally, and, in turn, they agree with the local tradi- 
tion that Greatbach had his own seat in the bar-room and was one of 
the leading spirits in organizing evening rides to a well-known drinking- 
place some miles away, from which most of the potters returned in 
hilarious mood. 

I find these recollections of the man by those who knew him well, 
who saw him daily for years, and who, regarding him as an extraor- 
dinary man, would be likely to retain exceedingly distinct impressions 
of his appearance and personality, far more convincing than the pic- 
-ture quoted by Pitkin. Somehow, the idea of a recluse does not. har- 
monize with Greatbach’s work. At least, I find it impossible to believe 
that the creator of those Toby mugs and bottles, quaint and whimsical 
as they are, was a recluse, or indeed, anything other than a ‘good 
fellow.’ 

After the failure of the Fenton and Clark enterprise at Peoria, 
Greatbach went to East Liverpool for a time, and while there he worked 
for a short time for William Bloor, I believe. Apparently he removed 
to Trenton, New Jersey, at the end of 1864 or the beginning of 1865, 
for his name appears for the first time in Lant’s Directory of Trenton for 
1865-66, in which he is described as a ‘ Designer,’ residing on Kossuth 
Street. By that time he had fallen upon evil days. Always an improvi- 
dent man, old age found him in dire poverty. Mr. Joseph Lawton, one 
of Trenton’s oldest potters, gives the following information: 


730 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Upon returning from the Civil War, I was employed as mould maker at 
the pottery of William Young & Sons in this city. During that year, which 
I believe was 1866, Mr. William Young, deceased, employed Daniel P. 
Gretbech, an expert modeller. His work was the finest that I have ever seen. 
I made moulds from his creations. He had a daughter. I believe that she 
was married in this city. Gretbech was an old man at this time. His 
manner and make-up were very refined. In fact, he impressed me as a man 
who had seen better days — a man of polish and knowledge who apparently 
was up against it — Gretbech at last disappeared. To the best of my recol- 
lection he went to the poorhouse and was buried in the paupers’ cemetery.* 


Mr. Lawton’s memory of the old modeller is that he was ‘rather 
tall’ and of ‘medium build,’ which varies from other descriptions al- 
ready quoted. Another old potter, Mr. John P. Beech, remembers 
that, for a time, Greatbach worked in Trenton at the John Maddock 
Pottery. The vital records of Trenton do not, apparently, contain 
any record of his death. Mr. Harry J. Podmore, to whose researches 
I am indebted for practically all that I have been able to discover 
concerning Greatbach’s closing years in Trenton, tells me that the 
present Poormaster has informed him that it is hardly likely that 
Greatbach’s death would be placed upon any city or State record if he 
died in the poorhouse, as no records of pauperism were kept at that 
time. Presumably, then, Greatbach died in the Trenton Poorhouse 
and was buried in the old Paupers’ Cemetery, of which not a trace has 
been left, the entire tract of land which it occupied having been built 
over long ago. Thus in complete obscurity ended the career of the 
best-known of all the men who worked at the United States Pottery. 

Partly because some of the pieces most sought after by collectors 
of Bennington pottery are associated with his name, Greatbach has 


been greatly overrated and the merits of his work have been exagger- 


* I have reproduced Mr. Lawton’s spelling of Greatbach’s name. I know of no authority 
os the middle initial “P.’ The surname was frequently spelt ‘Gretbetch,’ ‘Gretback,’ ‘Gret- 
ech,’ etc. 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 233 


ated. He has been acclaimed as a great genius — frequently by persons 
who should know better. He was no genius, though his talent was 
unquestionable. He lacked originality, but he was a competent 
modeller. Nothing that he designed may be said to possess great and 
distinctive artistic merit; and not a little that he produced was com- 
monplace. Yet it must be admitted that, in general, his work was well 
executed. If he was not a great creative artist, he was at least a crafts- 
man of more than ordinary skill, and he possessed the integrity and 
devotion to ideals which all the great master craftsmen have possessed. 
He left the mark of his personality upon the products of the Benning- 
ton pottery, whose merit is in no small measure due to his fine crafts- 
manship. 

In judging the work of Greatbach, and his place in our ceramic his- 
tory, we must always bear in mind what the Bennington potteries 
were, and what they were intended to be. They were manufactories 
for the production of the domestic wares used by a simple people, and 
of such homely ornaments as sucha people could appreciate and afford. 
To compare these products with the rare and costly specimens produced 
for rich patrons by Wedgwood, the Worcester Porcelain Company, 
Duesbury, and other noted English makers, would be extremely 
foolish. These latter firms employed the greatest artists of their day 
to make designs, and for individual pieces they sometimes received 
prices which to-day seem almost incredible. Yet even high prices did 
not always cover the cost of production. Josiah Wedgwood paid 
Webber twenty-five hundred dollars for modelling a copy of the fa- 
mous Barberini vase belonging to the Duchess of Portland. From this 
model fifty vases were made. They sold at fifty guineas each. In 
other words, for the entire output Wedgwood received just what he 
had paid for the modeller’s work alone — counting as nothing the 


234 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


enormous expense of manufacture, including numerous experiments. 

It is not with such enterprise that we must compare the work of the 
Bennington potters. Greatbach was not a Webber. The Bennington 
pottery directed and inspired by Christopher Webber Fenton and 
Decius W. Clark must be judged by quite different standards. We 
must see it as the courageous and sincere attempt of American crafts- 
men to raise the standards of an important industry; to make its pro- 
ducts more attractive and pleasing to the eye without sacrifice of 
utility; to make it dependent upon American materials only; and, 
finally, to establish for American workmen standards of excellence 
hitherto rarely attempted. Daniel Greatbach was a leading figure in 
that experiment. 


Enocu Woop 

Enoch Wood, who worked at the United States Pottery for some 
years, was a mould-maker. He was descended from a long line of 
famous English potters. His great-grandfather was the brother of 
Ralph Wood, of Newcastle, Staffordshire, father of the famous 
designer and modeller, Enoch Wood, who is so often called ‘The 
Father of English Pottery.’ It was after this great English potter, 
whose beautiful border designs encircling American historical and 
scenic pictureware are so greatly prized by collectors, that the Ameri- 
can Enoch Wood was named. One of the uncles of the latter was 
Thomas Wood, of the firm of Wood and Challinor, of Tunstall; 
another uncle was John Wood, long identified with the firm of Cope- 
land, of Stoke-on-Trent, and one of the most brilliant china painters 
of his day; another uncle was Hugh Wood, a successful English en- 
graver. Josiah Wedgwood was related to the Wood family. 

Enoch Wood came to Bennington as a young man and worked at 





SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 235 


the United States Pottery, as a mould-maker. He was regarded as 
one of the most skillful workers of his day in that branch of the in- 
dustry. He left Bennington in 1853 or 1854, and went to South Nor- 
walk, Connecticut, where he was employed by a potter named 
Wheeler, whose daughter he subsequently married. About 1857 or 
1858, he purchased a half-interest in the business and with his 
brother-in-law for partner carried it on for some time. He served in 
the Northern Army during the Civil War and attained the rank of 
Captain. After the War, the pottery at South Norwalk having been 
destroyed by fire in the meantime, he became the superintendent of 
the Hall Pottery at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Here he went in for 
the manufacture of Scroddled Ware upon a large scale, but, finding 
that style unpopular and unsaleable, he soon turned to the manufac- 
ture of Rockingham Ware, producing numerous pitchers and Toby 
mugs which are frequently mistaken for Bennington, even by careful 
and discriminating collectors. Captain Enoch Wood was held in high 
repute by the potters of his day. By all accounts, he was a con- 
scientious and highly skilled artisan who strove to live up to the 
traditions of his family. 


STEPHEN THEISS 

Stephen Theiss was a designer and modeller who worked at the 
United States Pottery from 1850 to its suspension in 1858. He was a 
native of Mons, Belgium, and came to the United States in 1848, at 
the age of twenty-four years. Before Greatbach joined the staff of the 
‘United States Pottery, Theiss was its chief designer and modeller. 
Greatbach, however, when he came, was given the chief position and 
Theiss was placed under him. Unlike Greatbach, Theiss had mastered 
every department of his trade, and could mix bodies and glazes, make 


236 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


moulds, ‘throw’ or cast, or set kilns. It was said of him that he was 
one of the best ‘all around men’ employed at the United States 
Pottery. When the latter suspended operations, he was one of the 
group of workmen who formed the joint stock company that for a 
short time operated the pottery at West Troy. He lost practically all 
his savings in that enterprise. Later on, he was one of those who 
undertook to re-start the United States Pottery. From Bennington 
he went to South Amboy, New Jersey, and thence to Worcester, where 
he worked for Norton & Hancock. At a still later time he was em- 
ployed as foreman in the pottery of J. Jefford, in Philadelphia. 


THEOPHILE FREY 

Théophile Frey was a Frenchman, who entered the employment of 
the United States Pottery Company in 1849 and remained in Ben-. 
nington until the close of 1859. Turning over the files of the local 
newspapers of the period, one soon discovers that Frey was one of the 
most popular men connected with the pottery, and the old potters so 
remember him. He was regarded as one of the most expert china 
decorators in the country, perhaps the most expert; and one is forced 
to the conclusion that the wares produced at Bennington did not afford 
him an opportunity to do his best work. 

Before coming to Vermont, Frey had been employed for twelve 
years as a decorator at the Sévres Porcelain Works in France. He is 
said to have had a collection of specimens of Sévres porcelain, deco- 
rated by himself, which was greatly admired, the beauty and rich- 
ness of many of the pieces frequently forming the topic for conversa- 
tions among the workmen at the pottery and among the townspeople 
in general. Frey was an ardent Freemason, a member of Mount 
Anthony Lodge, F. & A. M., and was much given to political dis- 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 237 


cussion, his radical views sometimes astonishing the more conserva- 
tive. When Fenton and Clark opened up their Peoria factory, at the 
end of 1859, it had been planned that Frey should accompany them, 
and the fact that he was to do so was duly announced in the local 
press. It appears, however, that he changed his mind at the last 
moment, and went to Trenton, New Jersey, instead. Although the 
tradition that he was a great artist survives to this day, I do not know 
of any example of his work which can be regarded as particularly 
notable. The decorated pitchers which have survived show compe- 
tent workmanship but no more; they display neither originality of de- 


sign, nor any trace of superlative talent. 


MEN FROM STAFFORDSHIRE 

Among the workmen who came from Staffordshire were William 
Hollins, William and Charles Leake, John Sedman, Leonard Wray, 
William Umpleby and William Maddock —all pressers; Enoch 
Barber, John Leigh, mould-makers; Joseph Tunicliff, James Baker and 
William Wray, turners; Enoch Lear and John Caldwell, Jr., throwers; 
James Caldwell, slip maker; John Caldwell, clay maker; Joseph Alsop, 
John Molds, William Anderson, Richard Moon, William Seabridge, 
William Owens and Thomas Platt, all kiln-pacers. This list is not 
complete; it is merely given as representative of the English work- 
men who were employed at Bennington, and to show in how large a 
measure the working force was recruited from the Staffordshire 
potteries. 

Some of the men mentioned in this list were artisans whose work 
was of such quality that their fame endured long after them. Enoch 
Barber is an example. Until a few years ago, whenever old potters 
gathered together and indulged in reminiscent talk the skill of Enoch 


238 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


Barber was almost certain to be spoken of. William Leake was 
another whose skill was long celebrated. I have a small collection of 
pieces modelled and made by him at Elizabeth, New Jersey, when he 
and his son, W. G. Leake, were in partnership with L. B. Bierbower, 
under the firm name of Bierbower & Co. These show that Leake must 
have been a potter of uncommon ability and skill. His photograph 
frames in flint enamel, wonderful in coloring, greatly excel anything 
in the same line that was made at Bennington. His vases, too, beau- 
tifully modelled and richly colored with cobalt blue, are most effec- 
tive. A napkin ring in black and gold, with a floral design in colors, 
is as fine as anything of the kind ever produced at any American 
pottery. 


Native VERMONTERS 

Among the native Vermonters employed at the United States 
Pottery, Decius W. Clark, of course, stood head and shoulders above 
all the rest. Enoch Moore, foreman; William Wells, Byron Sibley, 
William and Henry Moore, John Keough, Thomas A. Hutchins, Rufus 
Godfrey, Charles Kimball, Thomas Cullien, Daniel and Patrick 
McGuire, Augustus Danforth, Charles and Dwight Riddle, Silas R. 
Wilcox and Charles Sanford — these are a few of the names of Ben- 
nington men who were employed at the United States Pottery at one 
time or another. 

The ideal of Christopher Webber Fenton and Decius W. Clark was 
the maintenance of a wholly American industry — native workmen, 
using native materials and supplying the American market. The em- 
ployment of foreigners was, to them, an unavoidable evil to be con- 
tinued only until the industry had established itself, and had trained 


enough competent native workmen to carry it on without foreign 


— > 


SOME OF THE BENNINGTON CRAFTSMEN 239 


assistance. They would not use foreign clays;* they looked forward to 
the time when only American skill would be required. 


* Pitkin says — apparently quoting Mrs. Emmons — that a large amount of the clay used 
at the United States Pottery was brought ‘as ballast in ships from abroad.’ (Op. cit., p. 39.) 
I have made careful inquiry into this matter and have not been able to find a single fact to 
support the statement. Fenton and Clark continually emphasized the fact that they did not 
use foreign clays, but native clays exclusively. This statement was often published in the 
local press and never challenged; it was also repeatedly made in the press of New York and 
other cities. I am convinced, therefore, that the statement about the use of foreign clays is 
incorrect, so far as the United States Pottery is concerned. Old Vermonters often used the 
word ‘abroad’ to indicate other states in the Union! 


VI 
BENNINGTON MARKS 


A. Norton & Fenton Marks 


NORTON & FENTON 
East Bennington,Vt. 


HE two marks, shown here in reduced size, occur on stone- 
ware and Rockingham from 1845 to 1847. Neither is to be 


considered prior to the other. 


B. FENton Marks 
I. FENTON’S WORKS 


sO PKQRIE 
Fenton'sWorks; 
te set 
Vermont, 


This raised medallion with — lettering was used by Fenton 





from the summer of 1847 until late in 1848. He used it when he was 


in business alone and during his brief partnership with Henry Hall 


BENNINGTON MARKS 241 


in the firm of Fenton, Hall & Co. The mark is found upon many of the 
white porcelain pitchers, and is not at all rare. It isinteresting to note 
that the mark itself, both in design and general appearance, is remark- 
ably like the mark used by a well-known English firm of the period — 
Jones & Walley, of Cobridge — some of whose designs Fenton seems 
to have appropriated. 


II. LYMAN FENTON & CO. 










Sent 

of On 

Ks Fentons %¢ 
ENAMEL 

: ATENTED. 


%,! 849) $ 
Lvn ines 


This is the familiar 1849 stamp that is found impressed on so many 











pieces of Rockingham and Flint Enamel. The misuse of this mark, 
and the resulting confusion, have been discussed in the preceding pages. 
It was first used late in 1849, and, notwithstanding the fact that the 
partnership of Lyman and Fenton was dissolved before the end of 
1852, the use of the mark was continued, apparently, for some six 
years afterward — to the end of the business, in fact. It may well be, 
however, that its use from 1852 onward was occasional and limited, 
and that this fact accounts for the large number of pieces of Rocking- 
ham and Flint Enamel that are found unmarked. 


242 THE FENTON POTTERIES 


III — U.S.P. 


wi 


Rex 


This mark came into use in 1852, at the time of Lyman’s with- 
drawal. As noted in the text, the name ‘United States Pottery’ — 
and even ‘United States Pottery Company’ — was used some time 
before the incorporation of the United States Pottery Company. At 
the time when the business was carried on under the firm name of 
O. A. Gager & Co. the name ‘United States Pottery’ was applied to 
the works. 

The ‘ribbon mark’ is raised, the letters and numerals being im- 
pressed. These latter are often quite obscure and even illegible. This 
mark is found for the most part upon porcelain pitchers and vases, 
including Parian. The figures at the right-hand side denote the pat- 
tern number; those on the left the size of the pitcher. 


IV. UNITED STATES POTTERY CO. 


sty 


ee 


Js <a Rene 


aay Bae RY 6 © ge 


“ve Vener CO 
POSS 
This raised ornamental medallion appears to have been adopted in 


1853, at the time of the incorporation of the United States Pottery 


Company. It is found upon porcelain pitchers, and, I believe, nowhere 





BENNINGTON MARKS 243 


else. The lettering is, of course, impressed. This mark was in the 


mould, and could not be used upon any except ‘cast’ pieces. 


V. UNITED STATES POTTERY CO. 





This elliptical impressed stamp is found upon much of the Scroddled 
Ware. More rarely it is found upon pieces of Rockingham or Flint 
Enamel — including book-shaped bottles or flasks. Because it was in 
the form of a stamp, which could be impressed into any clay surface, 
while ‘green,’ its use was not limited to ‘cast’ pieces as was that of the 
raised marks. 


VI. A. A. GILBERT & CO. 
VII. NEW ENGLAND POTTERY CO., BENNINGTON 
So far as I know, there is not a single specimen in any known 
collection containing either of the two foregoing marks. But because 
more or less circumstantial accounts of pieces bearing such marks 
have been current for some time, this notation is made with all due 


reserve. 


‘VIII. T. A. HUTCHINS & CO. 
This is the mark used for a brief time, after the failure of the United 
States Pottery Company, by the last of the successors of the concern. 
It has no significance and seems to have been used almost — if not 


quite — exclusively upon cuspidors. 








‘ ; } * my AN : a vibe my, ) + i 
: CA eg Ses ¥: 
Wat) FR Siar eee sett 5 ed 
Teta MMR: 
: : 5 Pe 
nie 
aide? 
‘ (a at ee ive te 
PS sd aya Sy 
7 : am r ae ‘ : i. ex ‘e: a 
2 yableedt ly masa aoa tine ae 
nal 4 
= 











APPENDIX I 
IDENTIFICATION HINTS 


Cow-CREAMERS 


THERE are many types of ‘cow-creamers,’ closely resembling those made at 
Bennington, and representing the product of many different potteries. The 
fact that none of those made at Bennington was ever marked, and the 
further fact that this fact applies to cows of almost every other make, 
renders identification exceedingly difficult. 

The true Bennington cow is quite plump—rather bloated, in fact. 
Reject those with extremely prominent ribs. In the genuine Bennington 
cow the ribs are plainly indicated in the modelling, and are often emphasized 
by the coloring, but in passing the finger over the side of the cow the ribs, 
while perceptible, do not give the impression of marked corrugations. 
Reject the cows with blurred and poorly modelled eyes: in the genuine 
Bennington type the eyes are always well-modelled, clear and open. The 
nostrils should be well marked by crescent shaped indentations. The folds 
in the skin below the neck are clearly shown. 

Disregard variations in color, mottling, and so forth, but beware of those 
cows which are in a single tone, either light or dark, without the mottled 
effect. Slight variations in size occur (mainly due to differences in the shrink- 
age of the clay according to its quality, degree of wetness, and so on) and 


should be disregarded. 


Tosy Mucs 


There are several types of Rockingham Toby mugs which are sometimes 
mistaken for Bennington ware. As more than ninety per cent of the known 
Bennington Toby mugs are unmarked, it is well to be on guard. In all cases, 
the Bennington Toby mugs are almost flat at the bottom, whereas the most 
commonly encountered ‘spurious’ type has a concaved space underneath in 
which a good sized ball can be set. Notwithstanding that such pieces may be 
offered with a Bennington history — perhaps authentic and offered in good 
faith — they are certainly ot Bennington pottery and should be rejected by 
the collector. 


248 APPENDIX I 


Docs 


In view of the fact that (except for the small paper-weights) none of the 
dogs made at Bennington was ever marked, it may be well to warn the col- 
lector against various types of dogs, in Rockingham glaze as a rule, but 
sometimes also in Parian and in ‘Flint Enamel,’ with touches of color. Such 
beasts are frequently offered as ‘Bennington.’ None of the dogs in a sitting 
posture, without bases, and none of those with bases (sometimes called 
“Door Stops’) was ever made at Bennington. 


Hounp-HAnpDLE PITCHERS 


Never marked. There are so many types of hound-handle pitchers in 
Rockingham glaze, some of which are frequently mistaken for the Benning- 
ton model, that the following points, which make sure identification possible, 
should be remembered: 

The belly of the hound should have a pronounced ridge, instead of being 
flat or well rounded as in almost every other type. Note also the head of the 
hound: under the chin, and between it and the paws there is a space large 
enough to put the tip of the little finger through. The nose of the hound is 
really more like a duck’s bill than a dog’s nose. The collar of the hound is in 
the form of a chain, with the links clearly showing — not a band as in most 
other models. There is a border of grapevines, with fruit, around the top, 
a stag hunt on one side and a boar hunt on the other. The hound-handle 
pitcher with game on the sides, and the one with fish, are zo¢ Bennington. 


PARIAN AND OTHER PoRCELAIN FIGURES 


Various small ornamental figures in Parian and ‘Smear’ glazed porcelain, 
having letters and numbers impressed in the back (and in some cases on the 
bottom) have found their way into some of the best collections of Bennington 
pottery. It may be taken for granted, however, that these are not ‘ Benning- 
ton.” They are mostly foreign — English and German. Dr. S. R. Wilcox, 
who, as a young man, was employed in the United States Pottery making 
Parian ware, has assured me that ‘No such letters or numbers were ever 
used at the pottery’; that when one of these ‘foreign pieces’ was copied, ‘all 
distinguishing numbers and letters were eliminated in the mold.’ 


‘SCRODDLED’ OR ‘LAva’ WARE 


With only two exceptions, so far as I have been able to discover, the col- 
lector will do well to insist upon the small elliptical impressed mark (No. 6) 


APPENDIX I 249 


on this ware. The exceptions are the so-called ‘Tulip’ vases with scalloped 
top, and the cow-creamers. These were undoubtedly made at the United 
States Pottery, but not for the general market. Apparently, they were made 
by workmen as ‘individual’ pieces. They were not marked. I have not been 
able to discover any evidence that they were made in other American 
potteries. The vases were, however, made in a number of English potteries. 
On the other hand, while there is no evidence that door-knobs, door-plates, 
or photograph frames were made at Bennington of this ware, there is abund- 
ant evidence that they were made, in considerable quantity, at Perth 
Amboy. Much — probably most — of the unmarked ‘Scroddled’ ware on 
the market was made at other potteries than Bennington. The exceedingly 
light colored ‘Scroddled’ ware, having little of the dark waving lines, should 
be especially regarded with suspicion and, if unmarked, rejected. 


BLUE AND WHITE PoRCELAIN 


The unmarked vases and pitchers (especially vases) in this ware should be 
carefully investigated. Designs and patterns are not helpful here; indeed, 
reliance upon these will lead the amateur collector far astray. The same 
designs and patterns were used in scores of potteries, both American and 
English. The collector is referred to the description of this ware in the 
body of the book and warned to reject all pieces, no matter what claims 
may be made for them, in which the blue is thin and has the appearance of 
having been applied to the white after the drying or firing of the latter. A 
careful examination of a good marked specimen in comparison with one of 
these inferior pieces will show the great difference between the use of 
colored ‘slip’ applied to the mould and color applied to the body after drying 
or firing. 


APPENDIX II 


UnitTep STATES PaTENT OFFICE 
C. W. FENToN, OF BENNINGTON, VERMONT 
IMPROVEMENT IN GLAZING POTTERY WARE 


SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 6, 907, dated November 
27, 1849. 


To all whom it may concern: | 

Be it known that I, Christopher W. Fenton of Bennington, in the County 
of Bennington and State of Vermont, have invented a new and useful im- 
provement in the application of colors and glazes to all articles made of 
potters’ materials — such as crockery, earthen, and stone ware, signs and 
door-plates and knobs, picture-frames and architectural ornaments; and I 
hereby declare that the following is a full and true description thereof. 

The article to be colored and glazed, being in the usual state for apply- 
ing the glaze, is immersed in a transparent under-glaze, then with a small box 
perforated with holes the colors are thrown or sprinkled on through the holes 
over the surface of the article in quantity to produce deeper or lighter 
shades, as may be desired, leaving a part of the surface for the body of the 
article to show through in spots. By fusion in the kiln the colors flow and 
mingle with the under-glaze, and are carried about over the surface in various 
forms, and the article is thereby made to present a close imitation of the 
richest shells, variegated stones, or melting and running fluid, almost every 
variety of rich and beautiful appearance being produced by flowing and 
mingling of the colors with the under-glaze, and the appearance of the article 
being varied according to the complexion of the body of the article and the 
colors and quantity thrown upon it. 

The colors may be applied to the article by other means than that of the 
perforated box, provided the same effect is produced. What I claim as my 
invention, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is — 

The coloring of the glaze of pottery-ware by the means substantially as 
herein set forth and described. 

C. W. Fenton 
Witnesses: 
A. P. Lyman 
L. Norton 





APPENDIX III 


FORMULZ OF BODIES AND GLAZES USED AT THE 
UNITED STATES POTTERY 


Students will be interested in the following formule of bodies and glazes 
used at the United States Pottery. They are from the cherished “Secret 
Book’ of one of the old glaze-makers, which I have been permitted to ex- 
amine. 


ComMMoNn WHITE 


“Common White’ Body (a) “Common White’ Glaze (a) 
1350 lbs. Ball Clay 75 lbs. White Lead 
aso “ China Clay Fey Sun’ 
800 “ Flint 128 “ Feldspar 
30 “ Whiting 
425 “* Feldspar 16 “ China Clay 
30° ** Zine 


“Common White? Body (b) ‘Common White’ Glaze (b) 


1100 lbs. Blue or Ball Clay 100 lbs. White Lead 
too “ China Clay 60 “ Feldspar 
800 “ Flint 40 “ Flint 
375 “ Feldspar 5 “ Whiting 


4 “ China Clay 


GRANITE WARE 


‘Granite’ Body (a) ‘Granite’ Glaze (a) 
1400 lbs. China Clay 15 lbs. Boracic Acid 
200 “ Ball Clay 20 “ Whiting 

1100 “ Flint 70 “ Feldspar 

soo “ Feldspar 60 “ Flint 


The above calcined in glost kiln, ground 
and then mixed as follows: 

80 lbs. of above 

40 “ White Lead 

40 “ Feldspar 


252 APPENDIX III 


‘Granite’ Body (b) ‘Granite’ Glaze (b) 
goo lbs. Golden China Clay 140 lbs. Feldspar 
800 ““ Burgess China Clay Tye Flint 


400 “ Blue, or Ball Clay 40 “ Whiting 
1300 “ Flint Calcine above in glost kiln, grind 
goo “ Feldspar and add 


80 Ibs. Feldspar 
80 “ White Lead 


RoOcCKINGHAM GLAZE 


Formula (a) Formula (b) 
go lbs. Red Lead 100 Ibs. Red Lead (or Litherage) 
24 “ Feldspar a0. “GElint 
26 “ Flint 20 “ Feldspar 
Ties joc Clay 20 “ Clay 

7344“ Paris White 25 “ Manganese 
1S lay, 
36 “ Manganese 
YELLOW GLAZE 
Formula (a) Formula (b) 
150 lbs. Red Lead 75 I\bs. Red Lead 
25 “* Feldspar 21 “ Feldspar 
$6 ccs Mune 17%“ Flint 
30)" Clay 6 “ Clay 


10 ‘* Paris White 





APPENDIX IV 


NOTICE 


ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES POTTERY 
CoMPANY 


To Att MEN TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS MAY COME, BE IT KNOWN 


That we, Jason H. Archer, Henry Willard, Christopher W. Fenton, 
Samuel H. Johnson and Oliver A. Gager, have associated and do hereby 
associate ourselves together, under the provisions of an Act of the Legisla- 
ture of the State of Vermont, approved December 5th 1853, entitled ‘An 
act providing for the organization of private corporations.’ 

The purpose of this Association is to engage in the business of manufactur- 
ing Earthen and other Pottery Wares at Bennington, in the State of Ver- 
mont, and to engage in the sale and merchandise of such wares, under the 
corporate name of the ‘United States Pottery Company.’ 

The amount of the capital stock of said corporation is Two Hundred 
Thousand Dollars, in shares of Twenty Five Dollars each, and said corpora- 
tion is to continue for the time of thirty years from the date hereof. 

Dated at Bennington, in the County of Bennington, and State of Vermont, 
this eleventh day of June a.p. 1853. 

J. H. ArcHer 
H. WILLARD 
C. W. Fenton 
S. H. Jounson 
O. A. GAGER 


APPENDIX V 


“EXTRACT FROM THE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON 
THE GEOLOGY OF VERMONT, 1845 (pps. 52-53) 


Bennington. — Half a mile north-east of the village is a deposit of excellent 
kaolin, which supplies the manufactory of Norton & Fenton in the village. 
This bed is overlaid by drift, but the state of the excavation did not admit 
of an examination of its structure. Mr. F. very obligingly shewed us the 
material, and the ware in various stages of process, and gave the desired 
information with illustrative specimens. With a public spirit more praise- 
worthy than common, Mr. F, freely communicates the valuable results of 
his experience. 


For fire-bricks, the kaolin is made into paste with water, from which 
bricks are formed and burnt. These bricks, retaining the whiteness of the 
kaolin, and becoming very hard, are called ‘clay bricks.” They are next 
broken up by a mill and sifted, so as to be of the coarseness of fine gravel. 
This is mixed with unburnt kaolin and arenaceous quartz, pressed in moulds 
of the required form and size and burnt in the same manner as before. These 
fire-bricks are very white and hard, and when fractured shew their composi- 
tion of broken clay-brick and kaolin. 


Other kinds of pottery are here manufactured, and a great variety of 
articles of stone-ware. The latter was made with a mixture of kaolin and 
arenaceous quartz. But since our visit, improvements have been made, both 
in the construction of the works and in the processes, and I therefore take the 
liberty of inserting the following letter from Mr. F. 


BEnnincToN, September 15, 1845 
Dear Sir, — Your favor of the 5th instant came in due course, for which 
you will please accept my thanks. You have probably noticed by the papers 
the loss of our works by fire, which will be, I trust, a sufficient apology for 
me, for not furnishing you with some facts in relation to our business, as I 
had intended to do. The rebuilding of our works has occupied my whole 
attention since the fire, and has suspended all my experiments in the manu- 
facture of porcelain, to an indefinite period. We are now erecting, under the 
firm of Norton & Fenton, the most extensive and best constructed pottery 


ea. 


APPENDIX V ase 


works in this country. The buildings are fire-proof, in form a hollow-square. 
114 feet by 92. We intend to have a plan of our works taken when com- 
pleted, of which we will furnish a copy if you should wish. Our works are 
constructed so as to use more of our own materials than formerly. We are 
building mills for refining the kaolin, and also for pulverizing and grinding 
the feldspar stone, which we showed you a sample of, a mixture of feldspar, 
silex, etc. My experiments have proved it to be a very valuable article for 
common stone-ware, especially for chemical and other important purposes. 
By uniting these materials in certain proportions, we produce a much better, 
handsomer, and stronger stone-ware than is made in this country. The 
other improvements which we have made, consist in the construction of our 
kilns, for which we are entitled to patent, but shall not ask it, having furn- 
ished models to the owners of nearly all the principal potteries in the 
Northern States, who have built, or are intending to build, upon our plan. 
We have also perfected a system of firing our kilns, different from any other. 
In short, we have reduced it to a perfect system, while others make it an 
uncertain guess-work. These improvements render our wares more durable 
and perfect, and give us the preference wherever we send our goods. The 
character of our fire-bricks is also well known. They are a composition of 
materials which we find here, consisting of arenaceous quartz and kaolin. 
Being very pure, they make a good fire-brick, which will stand longer in a 
strong heat than any other brick known. They are used for blast furnace 
hearths, and, in many places, where no other fire-bricks will endure. The 
amount of fire-bricks and pottery-ware which we manufacture yearly, will 
not vary much from $20,000. I intend to continue my experiments as soon 
as I have leisure, with materials found here, of which I will endeavor to keep 
you advised. 
I remain your friend and ob’t serv’t, 


C. W. FEnToN 


In East Dorset, Wallingford, Chittenden, and Brandon, kaolin is assoct- 
ated with the brown iron ore-beds, as before described. ... 








al oy 


+ 


ere, 


Pos 







wer Shared 


tae 










CORNER 





i 
ee 


? 
? 





INDEX 


Adams, C. B., 63, 80. 

Adams, Enos, 146. 

Agate Ware, 186. 

Albany Slip, 5. 

Aldrich, History of Bennington County, 26 n., 
56, 63. 

American Pottery Company, 151-53. 

American Pottery Manufacturing Company, 
223. 

André, Major John, execution of, 4. 

Alsop, Joseph, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Anderson, William, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Archer, J. H., incorporator of United States 
Pottery Company, 131. 

Armstrong, Omindia. See Gerry, Omindia. 

Atkins, Thomas Astley, his search into the 
history of the Fenton family, 105. 


Baker, James, turner, 237. 

Ball clay, 86. 

Banded Granite, 165. 

Barber, Edwin Atlee, mistakes of, 3 7., 55, 
113 2., 163, 185, 226. 

Barber, Enoch, mould-maker, 71, 237. 

Basket with Child, modelled by John Harrison, 
78-80. 

Bates, William, 53. 

Beech, John P., potter, 232. 

Bennett & Brother, Rockingham Ware of, 
177, 180. 

Bennington, Norton Pottery in, 3; site of 
“Davenport House’ in, 17; site of ‘Tudor 
House’ in, 17; the ‘Rockwood farmhouse’ 
in, 17; new site of Pottery in, 17, 18; Clio 
Hall in, 37; Norton Pottery removed to 
lower village (East Bennington), 55-58; 
“Chatfield property’ in, 57; the ‘A. P. 
Lyman Privilege’ in, 63; Pleasant Street 
house, monumental piece on grounds of, 
130. 

‘Bennington’ and ‘East Bennington,’ as 
parts of pottery marks, 99. 

Bennington Dog Carrying a Basket of Fruit, 
229. 

“Bennington Lions,’ 227, 228. 

Bennington Stone Ware Factory, 68. 


Bennington Ware, at New York Exhibit, 129, 
1303 craze for, 154. 

Bennington wares, defects of, explained, 125, 
126. 

Bierbower, L. B., 238. 

Bingham, Julia, 8. 

Bingham, Sophronia Dewey, 8. 

Bird Nest pitcher, 115. 

Blackmer, Samuel H., Clerk of Court of 
Chancery, 148. 

Bloor, William, 231. 

Bodies used at United States Pottery, 
formule of, 251, 252. 

Bricks, made by Captain Norton, 13; en- 
amelled, 217-20. 

Brooks, Hervey, of Lichfield Pottery, 27. 

Brush, N., Jr., schoolmaster, 38. 

Buel, Jonathan, 5, 27. 

Buel, Lucretia, wife of John Norton, 5. 

Burlington, Vermont, pottery established by 
Judd at, 45. 


Caldwell, James, slip maker, 237. 

Caldwell, John, clay maker, 237. 

Caldwell, John, Jr., thrower, 237. 

Carr, James, 225, 226. 

Cartlidge, Charles, 144. 

Cartwright, Mrs., 159. 

Cartwright, Nettie, 159. 

Cary, Mary, wife of Jonathan Fenton (1), 
106, 107. 

Cider jug, marked J. Fudd, Fr. Bennington, 9. 

Clark, Decius W., 71, 72, 122, 130, 139, 2383 
at the Norton Pottery, 75, 214; a skillful 
workman and a serious student of ceramics, 
75, 214; interested in Statuary Ware, 78; 
granted patent for enamel glaze for crockery 
and pottery, 137, 216-20; at Kaolin, South 
Carolina, 142-44; at Peoria, Illinois, 144- 
53; responsible for formulas used in Fenton 
Potteries, 213; real inventor of Flint En- 
amel process, 213; a native of Vermont, 
213; early acquired reputation for skill as 
potter, 213, 214; marriage, 214; possessed 
little artistic sense, 214; his association with 
Fenton, 215; his second marriage, 220; 


258 


INDEX 


settled in Croton, New York, 220; death,|Enamel glaze, for crockery and pottery, 


220; ideal of, 238. 
Clark. Lyman W., son of D. W. Clark, 


144. 

Clay, from Troy, 11; from Long Island and 
New Jersey, 26; from New Jersey, first used, 
58; from New Jersey, object of its use, 58; 
Ball, 86; and glaze, difference between, 88; 
from Kaolin, South Carolina, 142; foreign, 
on use of, 239 2. 

Color, Fenton’s patent process for application 
of, in connection with glaze, 121, 122. 

Common White Ware, made by Norton & 
Fenton, 86; how made, 86; of general manu- 
facture, 87; produced by Fenton, 119,358; 
159; from Kaolin, 144. 

Common Yellow Ware, made by Norn & 
Fenton, 86; how made, 86; of general 
manufacture, 87; produced by Fenton, 112, 
160; from Kaolin, 144. 

Conant, Lydia, second wife of Ebenezer 
Fenton, 106. 

Copeland, of Stoke-on-Trent, Parian porcelain 
originated by, 77, 129, 196. 

Cow-creamers, 178, 179, 227; identification of, 
247. 

Cullien, Thomas, 238. 

Cushman, Henry T., 114. 

Cushman, Mrs. H. T., 113. 


Daisy design, 203. 

Danforth, Augustus, 238. 

Dark Lustre (Rockingham) Ware, made by 
Norton & Fenton, 87. 

Day, Dr. H. A., 55, 105. 

De Morgan, William, 183. 

Denio, Herbert Williams, Librarian of the 
Vermont Historical Society, 107, 111. 

Dewey, H. F., 141. 

Dogs, identification of, 248. 

Dorset, Vermont, association of C. W. Fenton 
with, 47-51; Jonathan Fenton (2) settles in, 
108. 

Dwight, John, 186. 


Earthenware, red, probably earliest ware 
made at Norton Pottery, 11, 12; lead- 
glazed, 14; salt-glazed, 14; decline in 
relative importance of (1828-1832), 26; 


invented by Clark, 137, 145, 216-20. 


Farrar, William H., stockholder of United 
States Pottery, 132; and the Kaolin Com- 
pany, 143, 144. 

Fay, David, 30. 

Fay, H. A., schoolmaster, 38. 

Fay, Joseph, 30. 

Fenton, Almira, daughter of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 107. 

Fenton, Augusta, daughter of Christopher W. 
Fenton, I11. 

Fenton, Christopher Webber, confused with 
R. L. Fenton, 34 2., 47-50, 55, 60; legend 
regarding his. connection with Luman 
Norton, 60; becomes associated with Nor- 
ton Pottery, 60, 61; date of his entrance into 
Norton firm, 64-66; his partnership with 
Julius Norton, 68-70, 112; his qualifications, 
70-74; his part in construction of new 
pottery, 74; his friendship with Decius W. 
Clark, 75, 125; gave reality to the thoughts 
of others, 75; interested in Statuary Ware, 
78; dissolves partnership with Norton, 80- 
85, 112; begins manufacture on own ac- 
count, 83; member of a powder manufac- 
turing firm, 84, 85, 116; difficulty attending 
search for the facts of his life, 103, 104; his 
ancestry, 105-07; son of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 107; birth, 108; his education, 109; his 
character and attainments, 109-11; his 
marriage, 111; children of, 111; his associa- 
tion with Henry D. Hall, 113, 114; his 
works, Bennington, Vermont, 1847-1848, 
114-16; as dry-goods merchant, 116-18; 
his patent process of applying colors in 
connection with glaze, 121, 122; bust of, 
130; incorporator of United States Pottery 
Company, 132; a great pioneer in the 
pottery business, 135; at Kaolin, South 
Carolina, 142-44; at Peoria, Illinois, 144- 
53; considered to have been responsible for 
failure of pottery company, 146; death of 
first wife, 153; marries again, 153; death, 
153; ideal of, 238; specification for his im- 
provement in glazing pottery ware, 250. 

Fenton, Clarecy, son of Jonathan Fenton (2), 
108. 


“slip’-covered red, produced at Fenton Fenton, Ebenezer, son of Robert Fenton, 106. 


Potteries, 165-67. 
Elers, John P., 105 2. 


Fenton, Captain Edward, brother of General 
James Fenton, 106. 


INDEX 


Fenton, Elijah, poet, grandson of General 
James Fenton, 105. 

Fenton, Eliza, daughter of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 108. 

Fenton, Fanny, daughter of Christopher W. 
Fenton, I11. 

Fenton, Frank, son of Christopher W. Fenton, 
III, 

Fenton, Harriet, daughter of Jonathan Fen- 
ton (2), 107. 

Fenton, Henry, son of Christopher W. Fenton, 
112. 

Fenton, Jacob, 108. 

Fenton, General James, 105. 

Fenton, John, 105. 

Fenton, Jonathan (1), son of Ebenezer 
Fenton, 106. 

Fenton, Jonathan (2), son of Jonathan 
Fenton (1), 50, 72, 107; children of, 107; 
settles in Dorset, Vermont, 108; a good 
potter, 109. 

Fenton, Leander, 109 n. 

Fenton, Louisa, daughter of Christopher W. 
Fenton, 153. 

Fenton, Maria, daughter of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 108. 

Fenton, Melyndia, daughter of Jonathan 
Fenton (2), 107. 

Fenton, Richard L., son of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 46, 47, 107, 109; his claims to considera- 
tion, 46, 47; confused with C. W. Fenton, 
34”., 47-50; birth, 48; associated with 
Luman Norton from 1828 to 1831, 50; his 
association with Dorset, 50, 51. 

Fenton, Richard Webber, son of Jonathan 
Fenton, 107; settles in St. Johnsbury, Ver- 
mont, 108. 

Fenton, Robert, 106. 

Fenton, Sally, daughter of Jonathan Fenton 
(2), 107. 

Fenton, Thomas, brother of the poet, Elijah 
Fenton, 105 7. 

Fenton, William, son of John Fenton, 105. 

Fenton, Hall & Co., firm name, 113. 

Fenton (F.) and Fenton (R. L.), East Dorset, 
Vt., mark of Fenton ware, 50. 

Fenton family, genealogy of, 
family of potters, 109. 

Fenton Potteries, Common White, produced 
by, 158, 159; Common Yellow produced by, 
160; Stone China produced by 160-62; 


10$-07; a 


259 


covered red earthenware produced by, 
165-67; Flint Ware produced by, 167; 
Rockingham Ware produced by, 174-80; 
Flint Enamel Ware produced by, 180-85; 
Scroddled Ware produced by, 185-89; marks 
used by, in chronological order, 240-43. 

Fenton Pottery, the old wares made at, 73. 

Fenton’s Enamel, mark, 174. 

Fenton’s Works, mark of, 114, 115, 175, 240. 

Fillmore, Henry D., 111, 153. 

Fire-bricks, introduction of, 62. 

Flint Enamel, Fenton’s patent process of, 121, 
180-85; distinguished from ‘flint glaze,’ 
182; the older process of, 183; Clark the real 
inventor of, 213. 

Flint Enamel Ware, manufactured by Fen- 
ton, 125, 180-85; exhibited at New York 
Exhibition, 129; identification of, 184, 185; 
marked and unmarked, 184, 185. 

Flint glaze, distinguished from ‘flint en- 
amel,’ 182. 

Flint Rockingham Glaze, 182. 

Flint Ware, produced by Fenton, 167. 

Formule of bodies and glazes used at United 
States Pottery, 251, 252. 

Fox-handle pitcher, 224. 

Frey, Théophile, 138, 151; china decorator, 
164, 236; facts of his life, 236, 237. 


Gager, Oliver A., wholesale dealer, 125; his 
career, 127, 128; incorporator of United 
States Pottery Company, 132; member of 
firm of A. A. Gilbert & Co., 136; enthusias- 
tic about new enamel glaze, 137; and the 
West Troy venture, 139; and new Benning- 
ton concern, 139. 

Gager (O. A.) & Co., 127, 128. 

Garner, Robert, 222. 

Gates, Henry S., 230. 

Gerry, Omindia (Mrs. Jethro Gerry), her jug, 

yo: 

Gilbert (A. A.) & Co., 136-38. 

Glaze, and clay, difference between, 88; 
metallic oxides with, use of, 121, 122; 
Fenton’s patent process of color in connec- 
tion with, 121, 122; improved enamel, for 
crockery and pottery, invented by Clark, 
137, 145, 216-20; of Rockingham Ware, 
171-74; of porcelain, 193, 194; smear, 194. 

Glazes used at United States Pottery, formu- 
lee of, 251, 252. 


Granite Ware produced by, 162-65; ‘slip’-| Gleason, Eben, 53. 


260 


Godfrey, Fred, 93. 

Godfrey, J. Pitts, 53. 

Godfrey, Rufus, 238. 

Goschen, Connecticut, 5. 

Grace, Harriet, wife of D. W. Clark, 214. 

Granite Ware, produced by Fenton, 162-65. 

Greatbach, Daniel, 71; oatmeal piece 
modelled by, 130; goes to Kaolin, South 


Carolina, 142; of wide popular fame, 221;} 


of English birth and ancestry, 221; grand- 
son of William Greatbach, 223; with the 
American Pottery Manufacturing Com- 
pany, 223-25; makes first hound-handled 
pitchers, 223; designs Toby jugs, 224, 226, 
227; designs Apostle pitcher, 224; his tea- 
set in Cream Ware, 225; in Bennington in 
1852-53, 225, 226; chief designer and 
modeller of United States Pottery Com- 
pany, 226; at Kaolin, South Carolina, 226; 
“Bennington Lions’ probably modelled by, 
227,228; other articles modelled by, 228, 229; 
characteristics of, 230, 231; falls upon evil 
days, 231, 232; in Trenton, 231, 232; his work 
and place in history of ceramics, 233, 234. 

Greatbach, James, 222. 

Greatbach, John, 222. 

Greatbach, Oliver, 222. 

Greatbach, William, 222, 223. 

Gregg, James, 152. 

Guilford, Connecticut, 4. 


Hall, Henry D., never a partner of Julius 
Norton and C. W. Fenton, 61, 83, 113; his 
association with C. W. Fenton, 113, 114; 
the ‘silent partner’ of Fenton, 113. 

Hall, Hiland, Governor, 113, 127, 148. 

Hall, N. B., 90 

Hall Pottery, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, 189. 

Hancock, Frederick, 214. 

Hard-paste porcelain, 191-94. 

Harrison, John, English modeller sent for, by 
Julius Norton, 78; 
modelled by, 78-80; returns to England, 80; 
dog with basket modelled by, 229. 

Harwood, Asa, 57. 

Harwood, Benjamin, his diary, ro. 

Harwood, Hiram, on André, 4; on marking 
pottery, 8, 9; his diary, 10, 14, 15; his first 
entry concerning Norton "Pottery, II; on 
bricks, 13; on lead-glazing, 14; on ae 


basket with child| Jones, Josiah, 221; 


INDEX 


by Norton Pottery, 21-24; on prices, 25; 
on domestic life of Judd family, 28-30; his 
picture of John Norton, 32; his account of 
John Norton’s death, 33-35; his account of 
John Norton’s funeral, 35; on Luman 
Norton’s propensity for reading aloud, 39; 
on Luman Norton’s musical performances, 
41; on Luman Norton at Burlington, 45; 
his evidence on identity of R. L. Fenton, 
48-50; on itinerant potters, 54; on existence 
of Norton Pottery in upper village till 1833, 
56-58; his record of marriage of Louisa 
Norton to C. W. Fenton, 111. 

Harwood, Peter, 57. 

Haswell, Anthony, 30, 32. 

Haswell, J. C.,8r. 

Haviland, Charles Field, 128. 

Henry, William, 16. 

Hill, Mrs. Frank, 159. 

Hollins, William, presser, 237. 

Hollis, Dr., 132. 

Houghwout & Co., 163. 

Hound-handle pitchers, 177, 178, 223, 224; 
identification of, 248. 

Hutchins, Thomas A., 140, 238. 

Hutchins. (T. A.) & Con 140, I4I. 

Hutchins (T. A.) &§ Co., trade-mark, 141. 


Ink stands, 76. 
Isham, Pierpont, 
Vermont, 148. 
Itinerant potters, 53, 54. 


of Supreme Court of 


Jackson, Charles T., State Assayer of Mas- 
sachusetts, 219. 

Jennings, Isaac, 13. 

Jersey City Porcelain and Earthenware 
Company, 223. 

Jewel-casket, 164. 

Johnson, S. H., incorporator of United States 
Pottery Company, 132. 

manager of works at 
Kaolin, 144. 

Judd, Isaac, Jr., 9 

Judd, Norman L., apprentice of Captain 
Norton, 37, 45; in Norton household, 37, 38; 
establishes pottery at Burlington, 45; leaves 
Burlington, 46; starts pottery in Rome, 
New York, 46; burnt out, but rebuilds, 46; 
responsible for use of New Jersey clay, 58. 


name of Norton Pottery, 15, 18-20; on site| Jug, the earliest piece made at original Norton 


of Norton Pottery, 17; on wares turned out 


Pottery, 5, 6, 26. 


INDEX 


Kaolin, as ingredient of porcelain, 191-93; 
found near Bennington, 254, 255. 

Kaolin, South Carolina, enterprise at, 142-44, 
Fea, 

Kaolin ware, 144. 

Keough, John, 238. 

Kimball, Charles, 227, 229-31, 238. 

Knapp, Miss (Mrs. Frank Hill), 159. 


Lascell, G. W., 146. 

Lava Ware, 185, 186; in combination with 
Parian figures, 188. 

Lawton, Joseph, 231, 232. 

Lead-glazing, 6, 14. 

Leake, Charles, presser, 237. 

Leake, William, 160, 237, 238. 

Leake, W. G., potter, 63, 71, 159, 160, 164, 
165, 227, 230, 231; son of William Leake, 
160, 238; loses money in the West Troy 
venture, 138, 139; with Enoch Wood, 189. 

Lear, Enoch, thrower, 237. 

Leigh, John, mould-maker, 138, 237. 

Lichfield Pottery, 27. 

Locker, Thomas, 225. 

Loomis, Lydia, wife of Luman Norton, 41. 

Love and War, design of Parian Ware, 116. 

Luther, Miss, great-great-granddaughter of 
Captain John Norton, 79. 

Lyman, Alanson Potter, partner of Fenton, 
126; his career, 126, 127. 

Lyman & Fenton, 85, 121. 

Lyman, Fenton & Co., 84, 116-21; new 
factory built by (1850), 122-24; retailing of 
products begun by, 124; mark of, 126, 
241. 

Lyman, Fenton & Park, 117-21.: 

Lyndia (or Lydia), Rose, wife of Jonathan 
Fenton (2), 107. 


261 


Fenton Potteries, in chronological order, 
240-43. 

Mertz, Jacob, 138. 

Metallic colors, 184; method of applying, C. 
W. Fenton’s patent for, 121, 122. 

Metallic oxides, with glaze, use of, 121, 122. 

Milkpan, of original Norton Pottery, 7. 

Minton, Parian porcelain goods made by, 78, 
129. 

Molds, John, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Moon, Richard, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Moore, Enoch, 138, 238. 

Moore, Henry, 238. 

Moore, William, 238. 

Moore Brothers, Parian porcelain goods made 
by, 78. 

Morehouse, Mrs. Margaret, second wife of D. 
W. Clark, 220. 

Morrison and Carr, firm name, 2265. 

Morton, J., 52. 

Mottled Ware, 176. 

‘Moulded and cast’ wares, 44. 


New England Pottery Company, 139. 

New York Exhibit, Bennington Ware at, 129, 
130. 

Norton, Alice, daughter of Julius Norton, 68. 

Norton, Clarissa, daughter of Captain John 
Norton, 37 7. 

Norton, David, descendant of Thomas Nor- 
ton, $5. 

Norton, Edward, 76; taken into partnership 
by Julius Norton, 88, 89; childhood and 
schooling of, 88; a Freemason, 89; death, 96. 

Norton, Mrs. Edward, 76. 

Norton, Edward Lincoln, son of Edward 
Norton, takes father’s place in firm, 96; 
introduces new lines of business, 96, 973 
death, 97. 


McEowen, Mrs. Daniel, granddaughter of | Norton, Eliza, daughter of Julius Norton, 68, 


Captain John Norton, 79. 

McGuire, Daniel, 238. 

McGuire, Patrick, 238. 

McKearin, George S., 166. 

Maddock, William, presser, 237. 

Marbled Ware, 185-87. 

Mark, the earliest used by Norton Pottery 
(L. Norton & Co.), 19. 

Marks, not used in early years of Norton 
Pottery, 8; of Norton Potteries, check-list 
of, 98; of Rockingham Ware, 174-78, 241; 
of Flint Enamel, 181, 182, 241; used at 


19 

Norton, Elizabeth Pratt, 7. 

Norton, Frank, 214. 

Norton, Grace, wife of Thomas Norton, 4. 

Norton, Captain John, founder of first pottery 
in Bennington, 3; his removal to Benning- 
ton, 3; his services in Revolutionary War, 
4; witness of André’s execution, 4; son of 
David Norton, 5; marries Lucretia Buel, 5; 
establishes pottery, 5; source of information 
about, 10; believed to have made bricks, 13; 
takes sons into partnership, 15; partnership 


262 


of, dissolved, 16, 17; his apprenticeship in 
pottery business, 27; children of, 28; his 
family life, 28-30; a religious man, 30; a 
Freemason and charter member of Temple 
Lodge, 30; picture of, 31; an intense pa- 
triot, 31, 32; death, 32; Harwood’s account 
of, 33-35; Harwood’s account of his funeral, 
35; his estate, 36. 

Norton, John, son of Captain John Norton, 
becomes member of Norton firm, 16; at dis- 
solution of firm, 17, 52;and Luman, Pottery 
owned and operated by, from 1823 to 1827, 
19; withdraws from partnership in Pottery, 
20; Director of Bennington Academy, 31; 
his connection with the Norton firm, 51, 52; 
establishes shop in lower village, 56. 

Norton, Julius, son of Luman Norton, 20, 41; 
taken into firm, 20, $7; responsibility in 
firm shifted to, 42, 59; successful business 
man, 43; talks of going to Portland, Maine, 
57; advertises under own name, 64; birth, 
67; living in Captain John Norton’s house, 
67; schooling of, 67; an accomplished 
musician, 67; his first wife, 67; his second 
wife, 68; a good craftsman, 68; austere as a 
man, 68; his characteristics, 68; a money- 
maker, 68, 70; his partnership with C. W. 
Fenton, 68-70, 112; progressive, 76, 773 
sends for John Harrison, 78; dissolves 
partnership with Fenton, 80-85, 112; 
confines himself to manufacture of stone- 
ware, 88; takes Edward Norton into 
partnership, 88; death, 89, go. 

Norton, Laura, daughter of Luman Norton, 
41, 60. 

Norton, Louisa, daughter of Luman Norton, 
41; wife of C. W. Fenton, 50, 60, 103, 111; 
death, 153. 

Norton, Luman, son of Captain John Norton, 
13; becomes member of Norton firm, 15, 16; 
at dissolution of firm, 17; and John, Pottery 
owned and operated by, from 1823 to 1827, 
19; becomes sole proprietor of Pottery, 20; 
held to be the equal of his father, 36; birth, 
36; schooling of, 37, 38; a constant reader, 
38-40; enjoyed thunder-storms, 41; mar- 
riage of, 41; children of, 41; his family life, 
41; fond of playing on flute and fife, 41; a 
man of quaint charm and ceremonial polite- 
ness, 42; his title of ‘Judge,’ 42; legend 
concerning, 42, 43; transfers responsibility 
to Julius, 42, $9; considered shrewd and 


INDEX 


capable man of business, 43, 44; a Free- 
mason, 44; a craftsman of the old school, 
44, 45; purchases ‘Chatfield property,’ 57; 
builds house on Pleasant Street, 59; legend 
concerning business connection of C. W. 
Fenton with, 60; approximate date of his 
withdrawal from business, 64. 

Norton, Luman Preston, son of Julius Norton, 
68; taken into firm of J. & E. Norton, 89; 
ability and character of, 92, 93; retirement 
of, 95. 

Norton, Luman Spooner, 8. 

Norton, Mrs. Luman S., 7. 

Norton, Norman J., son of Captain John 
Norton, 16; becomes turner, 52; assists in 
management of distillery, 52. 

Norton, Thomas, settles in Guilford, Con- 
necticut, 4. 

Norton, William, 3 7. 

Norton (E.), Bennington, Vt., pottery mark, 


95. 

Norton (E. & L. P.), 92; mark of, 92; fire of 
1874 in pottery of, 93, 94; the pottery wag- 
ons of, 94, 95. 

Norton (Edward) Company, mark, 97. 

Norton (Edward) &? Company, pottery mark, 
95, 96. 

Norton (J. & E.), 88; mark of, 88. 

Norton (J. & E.) & Co., 89; mark of, 89. 

Norton (J. & L.), firm name, 15. 

Norton (John) & Sons, firm of, 15, 16; dis- 
solved, 16. 

Norton, Julius, pottery mark, 88. 

Norton (L.), mark of Norton ware 1828-1833, 
20. 

Norton (L.) & Co., firm name, Ig. 

Norton (L.), & Co., earliest mark used by 
Norton Pottery, 19. 

Norton (L.) &§@ Son, Bennington, Vt., mark of 
Pottery after removal to East Bennington, 


9. 

Norton & Fenton, firm of, 66, 81; dissolution 
of partnership, 80-85; marks of, 83, 240; 
contribution of, to development of pottery 
industry, 85-88. 

Norton family, enterprises and interests of, 
16-19. 

Norton Pottery, the first in Bennington, 3; 
establishment of, 5; the earliest piece made 
at (“Aunt Mindy’ Gerry’s jug), 5, 6; other 
pieces of original pottery of, 6-8; Harwood’s 
first entry concerning, 11; red earthenware 


INDEX 263 


probably first ware made at, 11, 12; two 
kilns at, one for red earthenware and one for 
stoneware, 12, 13; becomes a firm, 15; as to 
the firm’s name, 15, 16, 18-20; dissolution 
of partnership, 16, 17; moved to new site, 
17, 18; owned and operated by Luman and 
John Norton from 1823 to 1827, 19; business 
of, extended, 20, 21; extent of its business, 
21-24; as to ornamentation of wares of, 
25, 26; removed to lower village (East 
Bennington) in 1833, 55-58; the new Pot- 
tery after revival, 58, 59; manufacture of 
fire-bricks introduced by, 62; burned, 65; 
the new Pottery after the fire, 74; experi- 
ments made at, in manufacture of porcelain, 
75, 76, 78-80; first piece of porcelain made 
at, 79; changes in firm, 80-97; manufacture 
of porcelain not continued at, 83; review of 
progress of its business, go, 91; the spirit of 
friendship and fellowship pervading, 91; 
fire of 1874 in, 93, 94; new lines of business 
introduced in, 96, 97; celebration of one 
hundredth anniversary of, 97; check-list of 
pottery of, 98. 

‘Norton’s Quarters,’ Guilford, Connecticut, 


4. 
de Norville, Seigneur, Norton family traced 
back to, 4. 


Oak Leaves and Acorns design, 204. 

Olin, Sophia B., second wife of Julius Norton, 
68, 79. 

Ornamentation, on early works of Norton 
Pottery, 25, 26; on later works, §9. 

Ostrander, Peter, 6. 

Ostrander, Sarah, 6, 7. 

Ostrander jar, the, 6, 7. 

Owens, William, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Oxide colors, 184. 


Palm Tree design, 202-04. 

Parian Ware, introduction of, to English and 
American markets, 77; originated by 
Copeland, of Stoke-on-Trent, 77; mistake 
as regards the name, 115; made by Fenton, 
115, 120; Pitkin’s definition of, 157; need of 
classification of wares designated as, 190; 
the distinguishing characteristics of, 196, 
197; the name, 196; the material of, a hard 
porcelain, 197-99; the norm of, 200-02; 
misuse of, 206, 207; English and Benning- 
ton, 207, 208; casting method of manu- 


facture of, 208, 209; pressing method of 
manufacture of, 209; coloring of, 209, 210. 

Park, Calvin, son-in-law of C. W. Fenton, 111, 
118; of firm of Lyman, Fenton & Park, 117- 
20; withdraws from firm, 120, 121; member 
of firm of A. A, Gilbert & Co., 136. 

Park, Miss, 80. 

Peoria, Illinois, enterprise at, 144-53. 

Peoria Pottery Company, 152, 153. 

Petun-tse, as ingredient of porcelain, 191-93. 

Pierce, John, founder of Lichfield Pottery, 27. 

Pitcher, Saint-Nicholas, 162, 163. 

Pitchers, of ware resembling granite, 137, 138; 
hound-handle, 177, 178, 223, 224, 248; 
porcelain, illustrations of, 202-06; fox- 
handle, 224. 

Pitkin, Albert Hastings, mistakes of, 5 7., 14, 
47> 555 60, 71, 725 86, 87, 92 H., 99, 114, 115, 
141, 181, 182, 185, 186, 239 #.; in search for 
facts of C. W. Fenton’s life, 103; his 
classification of wares made by United 
States Pottery Company, 155-58; his defi- 
nition of Parian Ware, 157. 

Pitkin Collection, 115. 

Platt, Thomas, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Podmore, Harry J., 232. 

Pond Lily design, 166, 204. 

Porcelain, experiments made in manufacture 
of, 75, 76, 78-80; piece of, modelled by John 
Harrison (basket with child), 78-80; piece of 
(basket without child), 80; manufacture of, 
not continued at Norton Pottery, 83; made 
by Fenton, 115, 120; Parian Ware made by 
United States Pottery Company and the 
Gilbert firm, 137, 156; from Kaolin, 144, 
151; hard-paste, its composition, 191-94; 
first made by Chinese, 191; midway between 
glass and earthenware, 191; its glaze (hard- 
paste), 193, 194; soft-paste, its composition, 
194, 195; its glaze (soft-paste), 195; varia- 
tions of, between hard-paste and soft-paste, 
196; classification of articles of, 200-02; 
blue-and-white, identification of, 210, 249. 

Porcelain, Statuary or Parian, 77. See Parian 
Ware. 

Pottery wagons, 94, 95. 

Pratt, Julia Knox, 7. 

Prices, in early part of nineteenth century, 25. 


Radford, Thomas, 222. 
Réaumur, discovers the secret of porcelain, 
91, 192. 


264 


Riddle, Charles, 238. 

Riddle, Dwight, 238. 

Ridgways, the, 224, 225. 

Robinson, General David, 30. 

Robinson, George Wadsworth, 6. 

Robinson, John S., ex-Governor, 148. 

Rockingham Ware, made by Norton & Fenton, 
87; pieces of, made by United States Pot- 
tery Company and the Gilbert firm, 137; 
from Peoria, 146; the name of a typeof ware, 
168; English and American use of the term, 
difference between, 169-71; the American, 
characteristics of, 171; the glaze of, 171; 
manner of applying glaze to, 171-73; ‘one- 
fire’ and ‘two-fire’ process, 172, 173; the 
quality of the glaze in, 174; variety of 
articles in, produced by Fenton Potteries, 
174; marks of Fenton articles in, 174, 175; 
an American copy of English Tortoise-shell 
Ware, 176; identification of, 176-80; 
without mark, 176-78; patterns of, 177, 178. 

Rome, New York, pottery started in, by Judd, 
46. 

Rose design, 202. 


Saint Nicholas Pitcher, 162, 163. 

Salt-glazed ware, 5, 7, 8, 59. 

Salt-glazing, 5, 14. 

Sanford, Charles, 238. 

Scroddled Ware, produced at Fenton Pot- 
teries, 185-89; the name, 185-87; method 
of its manufacture, 187; made at various 
potteries, 189; identification of, 248. 

Seabridge, William, kiln-pacer, 237. 

Sedman, John, presser, 237. 

Semi-porcelain, 161. 

Sherlock, Anna A., Town Clerk of Dorset, 
Vermont, 107. 

Sibley, Bliss, 53. 

Sibley, Byron, 238. 

Sibley, David, 53. 

Sibley, G. B., 138. 

Silliman and Goodrich, their book on exhibits 
at New York exhibition of 1853-54, 198, 207. 

‘Slip,’ Troy clay used for, 11, 208. 

‘Slip’ ware, produced by Fenton, 165-67. 

Smear glaze, 194. 

Smith, Ephraim, 17 2. 

Smith, John, 17 2. 

Smith, Mrs. J. E., second wife of C. W. Fen- 
ton, 153. 

Smith, Noah, 3o. 


INDEX 


Soft-paste porcelain, 194, 195. 

Southern Porcelain Company, 151. 

Spode, Josiah, 176, 222. 

Spooner, Maria, first wife of Julius Norton, 
67, 68. 

Spooner, William C., 68. 

Staffordshire, men from, 237, 238. 

Statuary Porcelain, 77. 

Statuary Ware, 197. 

Stephens, Alexander H., interested in Kaolin 
Company, 143. 

Stienbach, Peter, 138. 

Stone China, produced by Fenton, 160-62. 

Stoneware, example of (cider jug), 9; Troy 
clay used for, 11; early made at Norton 
Pottery, 11-13; increase in manufacture of 
(1828-1832), 26; Julius Norton confines 
himself to manufacture of, 88; from Peoria, 
152. 

Sutton, Uriah, 222. 


Thatcher, C. W., enters Norton firm, 95. 

Thayer, S.,.§3. 

Theiss, Stephen, 138; designer and modeller, 
235; his career, 235, 236. 

‘Thrown and worked’ wares, 44. 

Tichenor, Isaac, 30, 40. 

Toby mugs, 224, 226, 227; identification of, 


247. 

Tortoiseshell Ware, 176. 

Trading, in early part of nineteenth century, 
24. 

Troy clay, 11. 

Tulip vases, 249. 

Tunicliff, Joseph, turner, 237.. 

Tuttle, Mehitable, first wife of Ebenezer 
Fenton, 106. 

Twyford, English potter, 105 7. 


Umpleby, William, presser, 237. 

United States Pottery Company, wagons of, 
94; adoption of name, 128, 129; its exhibit 
at New York Exhibition, 129, 130; in the 
period 1853-1854, 131; incorporated, 131, 
132; difficult conditions for, 132, 133; 
failure of, 133-35; attempt to resuscitate 
business of, 136, 139, 140; types of ware 
made by, 155; pieces of Common White 
made by, 159; Common Yellow made by, 
160; ‘slip’ covered red earthenware made 
by, 166; marks of, 242, 243; formule of 
bodies and glazes used at, 251, 252; as to 


INDEX 


265 


the names of (‘United States Pottery’ and| White, Mrs. Ralph, daughter of Christopher 


“United States Pottery Company’), 242; 
Articles of Association of, 253. 


Vase, of original Norton Pottery, 7. 
Vases, porcelain, illustrations of, 205. 
Veined Ware, 187. 


Wadhams, Jesse, of Lichfield Pottery, 27. 

Wadsworth, Abel, 6, 52. 

Walker, Albert, 60, 84, 85. 

Walker (A.) & Co., 84, 85. 

Weaver, William L., compiler of genealogy of 
the Fenton family, 106. 

Webb, John, 214. 

Wedgwood, Josiah, 78, 176, 222, 233; related 
to Wood family, 234. 

Wedgwood, Thomas, 186. 

Wedgwood, Dr. Thomas, son of Thomas 
Wedgwood, 186. 

Wedgwood Mortar Ware, 132, 211, 212. 

Wedgwood productions, identification of, 
any 

Wells, William, 238. 

West Troy, venture at, 138. 

Whieldon, Thomas, 176, 186, 222. 


W. Fenton, 111. 

Wickwire, F., 52. 

Wilcox, Dr. Silas R., 130 #., 227, 238, 248. 

Willard, H., incorporator of United States 
Pottery Company, 132. 

Williamson, Frederick J., his Catalogue of the 
Pitkin Collection of Bennington Pottery, 156. 

Wills, Abel, 89. 

Winship, J. W., 52. 

Wolf, George, 226. 

Wood, Enoch, ‘The Father of English Pot- 
tery,’ 234. 

Wood, Enoch, conducts Hall Pottery, 189, 
235; manufactures Scroddled Ware, 189, 
235; a mould-maker, 234, 235; his ancestry, 
234; his career, 235. 

Wood, Hugh, English engraver, 234. 

Wood, John, China painter, 234. 

Wood, Ralph, 234. 

Wood, Ruth Howe, 109 2. 

Wood, Thomas, 234. 

Worcester Royal Porcelain Company, Parian 
porcelain goods made by, 78. 

Wray, Leonard, presser, 237. 

Wray, William, turner, 237. 

Wright, Asahel, 7. 























: Regen ee We Aye ti Fos 
: ; Dh . ’ a — Eas Yo 


~ i 





- F 


athe ee ra fs 

: ee eh le 
ars Sah 
i 1A am 2) 





LIST OF PLATES 


(Except as otherwise noted, the examples illustrated are from the author’s collection) 


Piate I (Frontispiece). Lion on Base with Cold-Slaw Mane— Flint Enamel 
Ware 


Illustration from specimen owned by Gilbert Balkam. 


Piate II. Examples from the First Norton Pottery 


1. The Omindia Gerry jug. (See p. 6.) 2. The Ostrander jar. (See p. 6.) 3. The Julia 
Knox Pratt vase. (See p. 7.) 4. The Sophronia Dewey Bingham jar. (See p. 8.) 


Prate III. Early Norton Stoneware 


1. (/eft). Stoneware jar with umber decoration, bearing the earliest Norton mark. 2. 
The Isaac Judd jar. (See p. 9.) 


Piate IV. Stoneware Jars with Cobalt Decorations 
Made at the Norton Potteries. 


Piate V. Pitchers 


Made by Norton and Fenton. Rockingham Ware or “Dark Lustre,” as the manufac- 
turers called it. (See p. 87.) 


Piate VI. 


Julius Norton (top); Christopher Webber Fenton (ower /eft); Decius W. Clark (/ower 
right). 


Priate VII. 


1. (above). Stoneware inkstand with cobalt decorations, made by Julius Norton. (See 
p: 76). 2. Slip-covered red earthenware pitchers, made at the United States Pottery. 
Owned by G. S. McKearin. (See p. 165.) 


Prate VIII. Rockingham Ware 


The plate illustrates the Monk and Coachman bottles and the famous hound-handled 
pitcher modelled by Greatbach. For identifying the latter close attention should be given 
to three points, viz., (a) the neck of the dog is arched well above the forepaws; (4) the 
collar of the dog is a chain with clearly defined links, not a flat band; (c) the belly of the 
dog is a rather sharp ridge, not flattened or rounded as in many other models. Each of 
these points is to be found in various other hound pitchers, but in no other case are the 
three found together. 


Pirate IX. Flint Enamel Ware Pitchers 
Made at the United States Pottery. 


Piate X. Flint Enamel Ware 
Made at the United States Pottery. 


268 LIST OF PLATES 
Piate XI. Tobies and Bottles in Rockingham Ware 


Made at the United States Pottery. 


Pirate XII. Flint Enamel Ware Pitchers 


The one in the center was formerly owned by Decius W. Clark, and is believed to have 
been his handiwork. 


Piate XIII. Porcelain Pitchers 


Made at the United States Pottery. All marked. Upper row, white; various glazes. 
Bottom row, first on left tan and white, the others blue and white. The one third from 
the left, with oak-leaf design, is owned by Mrs. W. Meagher, of Bennington. 


Piate XIV. Recumbent Cow in Flint Enamel Ware 


The tips of the horns have been broken off. United States Pottery Co. mark. From 
a specimen owned by Mrs. Foseph Lyman. 


Pirate XV. Dog Carrying Basket of Fruit — Flint Enamel Ware 
Made at the United States Pottery. Never marked. 


PLate XVI. White Earthenware Ornaments — Granite Ware 


The Swan has a blue line around the cushion base. The Cow-Creamer is decorated in 
gold. Former owned by Mrs. Harriet L. M. Sibley; the latter by G. S. McKearin. 


Pirate XVII. Presentation Piece by John Harrison 
The first porcelain successfully made at Bennington. (See p. 79.) 


Piate XVIII. Flint Enamel Ware 


1. Brilliantly colored hot water urn. 2. Table lamp with base and standard. Both made 
at the United States Pottery. Lamp owned by G. S. McKearin. 


Pirate XIX. Porcelain Figurines 
Made at the United States Pottery. 


Pirate XX. Articles in Flint Enamel and Rockingham Wares 


Pirate XXI. White Porcelain Pitcher, Love and War 
Made at Fenton’s Works. An early piece. (See p. 116.) 


aaa XXII. Blue and White Porcelain Vases 


Made at the United States Pottery. Never marked. 


Piate XXIII. Flint Enamel Ware 


Made at the United States Pottery. 


PLaTeE XXIV. White Porcelain 


Made at the United States Pottery. 


PiLate XXV. Flint Enamel Ware 
Made at the United States Pottery. 


1S Ce Cer. 


LIST OF PLATES 269 
Pirate XXVI. Scroddled Ware 


Made at the United States Pottery. (See p. 185.) Idlustration from specimens in the 
Wadsworth Atheneum, Morgan Memorial Museum, Hartford, Connecticut. 


Piate XXVII. Gold-Banded White Porcelain Table Ware 


Made at the United States Pottery. Illustration from service owned by Mrs. Charles H. 
Dewey, of Bennington. 


Pirate XXVIII. Porcelain Jewelry 


These brooches and pendants were not manufactured commercially, but were made by 
individual workmen for relatives and friends as personal favors. They are practically 
identical with others made at numerous other potteries, both American and European. 
Those illustrated have been carefully traced to the United States Pottery. 


Piate XXIX. Jewel Casket in Gold-Decorated White Granite Ware 
(See p. 164.) 


Piate XXX. Pair of Deer in Flint Enamel Ware 
Marked. The Doe (below) is owned by W. F. Hickmott. 


Pirate XXXI. Parian Dogs 


The one above has had mustachios added by a whimsical potter. It is owned by W. Ff. 
Hickmott. 


Pirate XXXII. Pair of White Pottery Dogs — Heavily Enamelled 
Formerly owned by Decius W. Clark. (See p. 137.) Owned by George S. McKearin. 


Piate X XXIII. Colored Porcelain Vases and Pitchers 
Made at the United States Pottery. 


Piate XXXIV. Blue and White Porcelain 


Made at the United States Pottery. 


Pirate XXXYV. Animals in Light Rockingham Ware 


1. Dog Carrying Basket of Fruit. 2. Cow-Creamer. 


Piate XXXVI. Earthenware Presentation Pitchers — Granite Ware 


The one at the extreme left is owned by Fenton’s granddaughter, Mrs. Ralph H. White, of 
North Bennington. 


Piate XXXVII. Presentation Pitcher 


Made for Samuel H. Johnson, 76 Pearl Street, New York City, Vice-President of the 
United States Pottery Company. 


PLtateE XXXVIII. Lions without Base 


1 (above). The cold-slaw or rough-cast mane type. 2. (delow). The smooth curly mane 
type. The latter is owned by G. S. McKearin. 


270 LIST OF PLATES 
Pirate XXXIX. Rockingham Ware 


All of the articles here represented are true Rockingham, and not Flint Enamel Ware, 
though some are so marked and practically all are commonly so classified. (See p. 174.) 


Piate XL. Granite Ware Slop Jar 


Made at the United States Pottery for C. W. Fenton and inscribed with his name. Now 
owned by his son-in-law, H. D. Fillmore. 


Piate XLI. Flint Enamel Ware Pitcher 
Made at the United States Pottery. Illustrated in color in Plate XII. 


Piate XLII. Granite Ware Presentation Pitcher 
Obverse and reverse of the example shown in colors in Plate XX XVII. 


Pirate XLII. Tulip Vases 


Flint Enamel Ware made at the United States Pottery. 


Piate XLIV. Hound-Handled Pitcher 


Rockingham Ware. Modelled by Greatbach. For points of identification compare note 
on Plate VIII. 



















Piate III 








4 





Mino 


ae Deer 


= 





PLATE LV 


Rare 
et 












Pirate V 





ee ea :aal Seal 





S 5 1 
: 7 
i > 
i} 
tf 
? 
. 
‘ 
4 = 
’ 
f 
* 
' 3 . 
' 
‘ 
% 
fi 
, 
‘ 
‘ 
? 
, 
yee 
* 
. 
> 





Piate VI 








‘ 
: 
‘ 
- , 
; 
~ 
>) ‘ 
i's wy 
j= a? veal 
7 
ie 
= 4 a 
+ 
; 
<a 
1 i 
i 
. 
a 1 
. 
4 
‘ 
- 1 
7) 
\ 
- 





PiaTeE VII 








Puiate VIII 


"ike 


—y 





-» 





Pratre LX 











ora 





PLATE. X 








PLATENS | 


: 
F 
; 
r 
. 








| 
| 
} 


Piate XIII 








— = 





Prater. LY. 





PLATE XVI 








Piate XVII 





“ 





PLATE XVIII 





PraTre. x lox 








Prater XX 





a 





PrAteE xX XI 








Prate Xx 1] 








Prats XXII 








PLaTE XXIV 








: PLATE X XV 








PrAtEeawx VI 








PEATELXN XV II 








Pirate XXVIII 





Bye 





PUSTE AON LX 


ae Supbhroni a 


» Brown. PP reseut._ 


. 
| 
. 








or 


PEATE NX 





5 





PLATE XX XI 








PATER «XL 








Prate XX XIII 








PLaTE XXXIV 








PLaTreE XX XV 








PiLaTe «XX Vi 








Pirate XX XVII 





= 














Pirate XXXVIII 








- Cy 


| Rainy Guay 9.2 @ Be 








PLaTeE XL 








| 
. 


PrATre Ll 





i 


de 
s@ 
‘ 








Piate XLII 


oF 
} Monae} SIVISE 


oa 


B ; if) roy ony, 


% 
CNY 








Prater X Lill 











Ws 


PrATE x Liv 














nai 





ae 


i 





